HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-12/19/2006-RegularDecember 19, 2006
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 19,
2006, 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: Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and
Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Mayor Hutchinson stated each participant would have three minutes to speak.
Ray Czaplewski, 2012 Huntington Circle, stated Fort Collins and its neighborhoods were in
transition and supported improved enforcement of the nuisance and occupancy ordinances. He
expressed appreciation for the Police Department's "party patrol" during the spring and fall. He
would like to see the City demonstrate leadership in mitigating some of the unintended consequences
of increased CSU enrollment. He thanked the Councilmembers for their "dedication to public
service."
Caryl Schonbrun, 6327 Westchase Road, requested adoption of a chemical sensitivity ordinance to
help address her life -threatening chemical intolerance problems brought about by the use of
herbicides by one neighbor. She was willing to pay for alternative products for her neighbor's use
and asked that an ordinance be adopted to "help her live."
Lloyd Walker, 1756 Concord Drive, commented on Consent Calendar item #14c Second Reading
of Ordinance No. 201, 2006, Amending Sections 20-104, 20-105 and 20-106 of the City Code
Pertaining to Parking and suggested further staff study of the effectiveness of certain provisions of
the Ordinance.
Robert Schonbrun, 6327 Westchase Road, stated most neighbors had been respectful of his wife's
chemical intolerance issues and had agreed to use a synthetic product he and his wife provided in
place of an herbicide. One neighbor knowingly continued to use products that could potentially be
fatal to his wife.
Nancy Jackson, 3249 Silverthorne, Disabled Resource Services Director, supported a chemical
sensitivity ordinance to help people with this debilitating and often misdiagnosed condition. She
stated "fragile" people suffering from chemical intolerance needed to be protected from the "neglect"
of others.
December 19, 2006
Jill Schonbrun, 6327 Westchase Road, asked for a chemical sensitivity ordinance to help her mother
live.
Karen Rose, 5200 Parkway Circle East, questioned the annexation of open space to create enclaves.
She stated the City/County intergovernmental agreement was changed in 2000 to specifically
increase the Growth Management Area and to allow annexation of both the City and County owned
open space in the southwest area. City staff informed the Council that the change in the
intergovernmental agreement and the annexation of the public open space was specificallyto be used
to bring the County property owners into an enclave. The Council approved the use of taxpayer
funded open space. Those actions and statements could not be disputed because they were on
videotape. If the current Council believed that taxpayer money for open space purchases should not
be used against private property owners, an Ordinance should be brought forward to prevent the use
of public open space as boundaries to enclose an enclave.
Sara Blom (address not provided), Caryl Schonbrun's trainer, spoke in support of a chemical
sensitivity ordinance. She stated the Schonbruns were willing to pay for alternative products for the
neighbor to use but the neighbor was not willing to make a change. She asked that the ordinance be
passed to protect those who could not risk exposure to chemicals.
Greg Herman, 907 Breakwater Drive, President of Congregation Har Shalom, stated his diverse
congregation believed each person should be able to practice religion in his or her own way. The
menorah symbolized a special event in the Jewish calendar and was specifically used as part of the
worship service for Hanukkah. There should be respect for the division between religion and state.
His congregation was willing to "sacrifice the public display of the menorah" in order to protect this
essential American value. He asked the Council to be consistent in applying the principle of
separation of church and state.
Mary Porter, 5339 Cinquefoil Lane, a friend of Caryl Schonbrun, supported a chemical sensitivity
ordinance to keep people like Caryl safe.
Janet Harper, 712 Coronado Avenue, a friend of Caryl Schonbrun, spoke in support of the
Schonbruns' request for a chemical sensitivity ordinance to protect the environment and Caryl's
health. She spoke regarding the special house that the Schonbruns had built from nontoxic materials
and asked that the City take this issue seriously.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Hutchinson thanked those who spoke during Citizen Participation.
Councilmember Manvel thanked Mr. Herman for his comments on the display of the menorah.
Councilmember Roy asked if the City could mediate the discussions between the Schonbruns and
their neighbor. City Manager Atteberry stated Neighborhood Services had coordinated a mediation
process and this had not been successful. Beth Sowder, Neighborhood Services Manager, stated the
City's efforts to work out a mediation agreement were not successful.
.I
December 19, 2006
Councilmember Roy stated it was his understanding there was no chemical sensitivity ordinance in
the works. He personally knew three people who had chemical intolerance and that this was a new
legislative issue.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he would support moving forward with developing a chemical
sensitivity ordinance and acknowledged it may not pass. It was a serious enough issue that it should
be considered. None of the major purchases of open space were done to create an enclave and the
annexation of that open space should not be confused with the purchase of the open space. The
purpose of the major open space purchases was to provide community separators, protection of
foothills property, etc.
Councilmember Kastein supported continuing monitoring of the effectiveness of the neighborhood
codes as mentioned by Mr. Walker.
Councilmember Roy asked legal staff to address why spraying of herbicides was not the same as
"turning up the music too loud repeatedly." City Attorney Roy stated he would provide an answer
to Council.
Councilmember Kastein commented a chemical sensitivity ordinance seemed to be "complicated"
and the comments made during Citizen Participation were not "falling on deaf ears."
Mayor Hutchinson asked staff to provide a legal and management perspective on the role and
appropriateness of the City in adopting and enforcing something like a chemical sensitivity
ordinance.
Councilmember Ohlson stated a determination needed to be made regarding whether or not at least
three Councilmembers wanted staff to put in time on this issue. Those who spoke should be given
some kind of idea where this was going. City Attorney Roy stated staffhad received a draft chemical
sensitivity ordinance from an attorney in support of the ordinance. Some work had already been
done and staff would draft an ordinance for Council consideration if that was Council's direction.
Council may want to have a management perspective and additional input from legal staff in
response to Councilmember Roy's question. It would be helpful at a work session or Council
meeting to determine whether or not at least three Councilmembers in support of moving ahead with
drafting of an ordinance for Council consideration.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda.
Karen Rose, 5200 Parkway Circle East, withdrew from the Consent Calendar items #8 Second
Reading of Ordinance No. 191, 2006, Amending Chapter 23, Article IX of the City Code to Allow
More Site -Specific Regulation of Certain Activities in Natural Areas, #15 Second Reading of
Ordinance No. 202, 2006, Amending Section 2-606 of the City Code and Setting the Salary of the
Municipal Judge, #16 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 203, 2006, Amending Section 2-581 of the
City Code and Setting the Salary of the City Attorney and #17 Second Reading of Ordinance No.
91
December 19, 2006
204, 2006, Amending Section 2-596 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and Setting the Salary
of the City Manager.
Al Baccili, 520 Galaxy Court, withdrew item #20 First Reading of Ordinance No. 207, 2006,
Amending Section 2-575 of the City Code Relating to Councilmember Compensation from the
Consent Calendar.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No 190 2006 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Recreation Fund to Be Used for the Purpose of Improving Youth Football Operations and
Increasing Awareness And Interest in the Sport.
The Recreation Division was awarded a three-year National Recreation and Park Association
(NRPA) Grant in the amount of $150,000 over three years. The Recreation Division will
receive $50,000/year to be used for staffing a full-time youth football Coordinator. NRPA,
as part of its grant agreement with USA Football, has received funds to be sub -awarded to
five community organizations for the purpose of improving youth football operations and
increasing awareness and interest in the sport. Fort Collins was selected as one of the five
Hubs. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 5, 2006,
appropriates the funding from NRPA for this sub -grant.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No 191 2006 Amending Chapter 23, Article DC of the City
Code to Allow More Site -Specific Regulation of Certain Activities in Natural Areas.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 5, 2006, makes two
minor City Code changes to facilitate the transfer of Gateway Park from the Parks
Department to the Natural Areas Program.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No 193, 2006, Amending Section 15-327 of the City Code
Pertaining to Secondhand Dealers and Flea Market Vendor Requirements.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 5, 2006, adds date of
birth to the information required from vendors renting a booth in a flea market.
Second Reading of Ordinance No 194 2006 Approving_ Revised Electric Service Rules and
Regulations.
The current Electric Service Rules and Regulations were last revised in 2002. Since that
time, the section of this document governing the installation and operation of distributed
electrical generation at a customer's facilities has become obsolete. A growing interest in
photovoltaic systems and alternative fuel generation has made it necessary to update the
Electric Service Rules and Regulations to better accommodate these types of installations.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 5, 2006, approves
revisions to the Electric Service Rules and Regulations.
92
December 19, 2006
10, Second Reading of Ordinance No 195 2006 Adopting the 2007 Classified Employees Pay
Plan.
The Pay Plan continues the current practice of setting City pay range maximums at the
market 70th percentile. Data from the public and private sectors was used to determine the
prevailing market rates for approximately 100 benchmark jobs. This Ordinance,
unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 5, 2006, sets salary ranges, not specific
salaries of individual employees.
11, Second Reading of Ordinance No 196 2006 Authorizin the e City Manager to Enter into a
Second Amendment to the Long -Term Lease for Civic Center Village Adiacent to the Civic
Center Parking Structure.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 5, 2006, amends the
Civic Center Village Ground Lease to clarify various maintenance responsibilities and to
provide two reserved parking spaces in the Civic Center Parking Structure for the Civic
Center Village leaseholder. This amendment is needed to clarify the maintenance
requirements of the lease, to enhance the business partnership between the leaseholder and
the City, and to ensure an ongoing business relationship.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No 197 2006 Designating the Jefferson Lindenmeier House
and Garage 511 South Whitcomb Street as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chanter
14 of the City Code.
Ordinance No. 197, 2006, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 5, 2006,
designates the Jefferson Lindenmeier House and Garage as a Fort Collins Landmark. The
owner of the property, Sondra Carson, is initiating this request.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No 198 2006 Amending the City Code for the Purnose of
Decriminalizing Certain Code Violations by Creating a Civil Infraction Classification and
Procedures for Violations Thereof.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 5, 2006, decriminalizes
certain City Code sections for a more effective enforcement of violations that adversely
affect the livability of City neighborhoods, such as:
• Collection and disposal of refuse and rubbish;
• Weeds, outdoor furniture and outdoor storage restrictions, storage of
inoperable motor vehicles and parking on unimproved surfaces;
• Sidewalk snow and ice removal and signs in the right-of-way;
• Pruning or removing trees or shrubs encroaching streets and
sidewalks.
93
December 19, 2006
14. Items Relating to Recreational Vehicle (RV) Storage and Parking.
A. Second Readingof OrdinanceNo. 199,2006, Amending Sections 17-181 and 17-182
of the City Code Regarding Camping.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 200, 2006, Amending Sections 1213 and 1214 of
the Traffic Code Relating to Parking.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 201, 2006, Amending Sections 20-104, 20-105
and 20-106 of the City Code Pertaining to Parking.
Ordinance No. 199, 2006 amends Section 17 of the City Code to eliminate the camping
permit requirement and redefine "camping" consistent with the definition and allows
temporary and intermittent camping on private property for 7 consecutive days and not more
than 14 days in a calendar year. Per Council request, staff has included a provision allowing
for an extension of these time periods when extraordinary circumstances or an undue
hardship exists.
Ordinance No. 200, 2006 prohibits the use of vehicles for living and sleeping purposes on
public property, streets and lots open to the public and private lots open to the public. It
amends Section 1214 of the Traffic Code to allow the parking of RVs and trailers on the
street for a 48-hour period for loading/unloading purposes and prohibits parking of any RV
or trailer in a manner that interferes or obstructs the view of any intersection or traffic control
device. Per Council request, staff has made changes to that section to more clearly set forth
that the 48 hour provision is an exception.
Ordinance No. 201, 2006 subjects RVs and trailers to the same requirements that are
contained in the current "parking on yards" ordinance by requiring RVs and trailers to be
parked on an improved surface or be screened from public view by a solid fence, masonry,
or shrubbery no less than six (6) feet high.
These Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 5, 2006.
15. Second Readine of Ordinance No. 202, 2006, Amending Section 2-606 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the Municipal Judge.
City Council met in Executive Session on November 14, 2006 to conduct the performance
appraisal of Municipal Judge Kathleen M. Lane. Ordinance No. 202, 2006, unanimously
adopted on First Reading on December 5, 2006, establishes the 2007 salary of the Municipal
Judge at $82,581.
16. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 203, 2006, Amending Section 2-581 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Attorney.
City Council met in Executive Session on November 14, 2006 to conduct the performance
M
December 19, 2006
appraisal of City Attorney Steve Roy. Ordinance No. 203, 2006, unanimously adopted on
First Reading on December 5, 2006, establishes the 2007 salary of the City Attorney at
$144,750.
17. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 204, 2006, Amending Section 2-596 of the Code of the
City of Fort Collins and Setting the Salary of the City Manager.
City Council met in Executive Session on November 14, 2006 to conduct the performance
appraisal of City Manager Darin Atteberry. Ordinance No. 204, 2006, establishes the salary
of the City Manager at $163,404.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 205, 2006, Authorizing the Lease of City -owned Property
at 424 Pine Street for into Tw= Years.
United Way of Larimer County has held a ground lease on City -owned property, located at
424 Pine Street, since 1985. This Ordinance renews the lease for up to twenty years.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 206, 2006, Amending Chapter 10. Article II of the City Code
to Update References to the Federal Emergency Management AgencvFlood Insurance Study
and Flood Insurance Rate Man.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has prepared a revised Larimer
County Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Maps that become effective
December 19, 2006. FEMA has requested that the County, and each incorporated
community, revise ordinances to reflect the new effective date. This Ordinance will revise
Chapter 10-19(a) of the City Code to reflect the new effective date. It also revises the
definition of Flood Insurance Study to correct an outdated reference to the mapping prepared
by FEMA as part of the Study.
20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 207, 2006, Amending Section 2-575 of the City Code
Relating to Councilmember Compensation.
Article II, Section 3 of the City Charter provides that the compensation of Councilmembers
shall be adjusted annually for inflation in accordance with the Denver/Boulder Consumer
Price Index. In 2006, Councilmembers were compensated $606 per month, and the Mayor
received $912 per month.
This Ordinance amends Section 2-575 of the City Code to set the 2007 compensation of
Councilmembers at $630 and the compensation of the Mayor at $945, as required by the City
Charter.
M
December 19, 2006
21. Resolution 2006-129 Approving the Purchase of Chemical Additives for Fort Collins Water
Utility and Water Reclamation Facility.
The Fort Collins Water Treatment Facility (FCWTF) is requesting to purchase, special rotary
hydrated (SRH) lime for alkalinity addition or pH adjustment from Mississippi Lime. It is
also requesting to purchase hydrofluosilicic acid 23% (HFS) from LCI Ltd for use as the
fluoride source.
Fort Collins Water Reclamation is requesting approval to purchase from Aqua Ben the
cationic polymer for dewatering the centrifuge and dissolved air floatation processes. It also
is requesting approval to purchase from ACM Corporation the 60%Calcium Carbonate/40%
Magnesium Hydroxide product for pH control. The Resolution will authorize the purchase
of these chemicals as an exemption to the use of competitive bid or proposal as provided in
Section 8-161(d)(4).
22. Resolution 2006-130 Making Appointments to Various Boards and Commissions.
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 18 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 42 appointments to 23 boards and commissions to fill
expired terms to begin on January 1, 2007. Names of those individuals recommended to fill
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. 190, 2006, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Recreation Fund to Be Used for the Purpose of Improving Youth Football Operations and
Increasing Awareness And Interest in the Sport.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 191, 2006, Amending Chapter 23, Article IX of the City
Code to Allow More Site -Specific Regulation of Certain Activities in Natural Areas.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 193, 2006, Amending Section 15-327 of the City Code
Pertaining to Secondhand Dealers and Flea Market Vendor Requirements.
December 19. 2006
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 194,2006, Approving Revised Electric Service Rules and
Regulations.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 195, 2006, Adopting the 2007 Classified Employees Pay
Plan.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 196, 2006, Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a
Second Amendment to the Long -Term Lease for Civic Center Village Adjacent to the Civic
Center Parking Structure.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 197, 2006, Designating the Jefferson Lindenmeier House
and Garage, 511 South Whitcomb Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter
14 of the City Code.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 198, 2006, Amending the City Code for the Purpose of
Decriminalizing Certain Code Violations by Creating a Civil Infraction Classification and
Procedures for Violations Thereof.
14. Items Relating to Recreational Vehicle (RV) Storage and Parking.
A. Second Reading ofOrdinance No.199, 2006, Amending Sections 17-181 and 17-182
of the City Code Regarding Camping.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 200, 2006, Amending Sections 1213 and 1214 of
the Traffic Code Relating to Parking.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 201, 2006, Amending Sections 20-104, 20-105
and 20-106 of the City Code Pertaining to Parking.
15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 202, 2006, Amending Section 2-606 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the Municipal Judge.
16. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 203, 2006, Amending Section 2-581 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Attorney.
17. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 204, 2006, Amending Section 2-596 of the Code of the
City of Fort Collins and Setting the Salary of the City Manager.
27. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 192, 2006, Making Various Amendments to the City's
Land Use Code.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 205, 2006, Authorizing the Lease of City -owned Property
at 424 Pine Street for up to Twenty Years.
97
December 19, 2006
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 206, 2006, Amending Chapter 10, Article II of the CityCode
to Update References to the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Study
and Flood Insurance Rate Map.
20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 207, 2006, Amending Section 2-575 of the City Code
Relating to Councilmember Compensation.
26. Items Relating to the Adoption of the Northwest Subarea Plan.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 208, 2006, Amending Division 4.24 of the Land Use
Code.
D. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 209, 2006, Amending the City's Zoning
Map and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property known as the Northwest
Subarea Plan Rezoning.
29. Items Relating to Signs and Displays in the Public Right -of -Way.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 210, 2006, Amending Various Provisions of the City
Code Pertaining to Unattended Displays on City Property.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 211, 2006, Amending Certain Provisions of the City
Code Pertaining to Signs in the Right -of -Way.
30. First Reading of Ordinance No. 212, 2006, Repealing Ordinance No. 137, 2006, Annexing
Property Known as the Southwest Enclave Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt and approve
all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson,
Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Councilmember Ohlson spoke regarding item #22 Resolution 2006-130 Making Appointments to
Various Boards and Commissions. He believed the Planning and Zoning Board was being "packed
with one particular viewpoint" on growth and development. It was important to have "balanced
views" on the Board to represent the different community views.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Brown reported on a Dial -a -Ride meeting to address long term goals and determine
the players in Dial -a -Ride funding issues.
December 19, 2006
Councilmember Weitkunat reported on the adoption of the Poudre Fire Authority budget for 2007
and long term funding goals.
Mayor Hutchinson reported on a Colorado Municipal League meeting with Governor -Elect Bill
Ritter and discussions relating to renewable energy.
Items Relating to the Adoption of the
Northwest Subarea Plan. Resolutions Adopted.
Ordinances Adopted on First Reading.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"FINANCL4L IMPACT
No direct financial impacts exist as a result of adopting the Northwest Subarea Plan. However, the
Plan identifies short and long-term strategies the City may be involved in over time.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2006-120 Adopting the Northwest Subarea Plan as an Element of the
Comprehensive Plan of the City.
B. Resolution 2006-121 Amending the City's Structure Plan Map to Comport with the
Northwest Subarea Plan.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 208, 2006, Amending Division 4.24 of the Land Use Code.
D. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 209, 2006, Amending the City's Zoning Map
and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property known as the Northwest Subarea Plan
Rezoning.
The proposed Northwest Subarea Plan was developed over an 18-month time fame, beginning in
April 2005, involving extensive input from residents, businesses and property owners. The plan is
a joint planning effort of the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County.
The primary elements of the Plan include vision, goals, policies and strategies; Framework Plan,
Open Land and Trails Plan, and Transportation Plan; Guidelines for the Urban/Rural Edge; and
the Action Plan. The Action Plan is a matrix of the strategies and identifies the lead responsibility,
start date, and possible funding sources.
Based on the proposed Framework Plan, Subarea Plan Policy LU-1.2, and Subarea Plan Strategy
LU-1.2a, amendments to the City Structure Plan Map are needed to (1) change the area west of
Overland Trail from Urban Estate to Foothills, (2) change various areas from Low Density Mixed -
Use Neighborhoods and Urban Estate to Commercial Corridor District, and (3) include a new
stream corridor ("Soldier Creek Restoration').
December 19, 2006
In addition, based on Subarea Plan policy LU-2.1 and Strategy LU-2.1a, amendments are needed
to Division 4.24 (Limited Commercial District) of the Land Use Code and a rezoning is needed on
4.8 acres near the northeast corner of West Vine Drive and North Shields Street in order to allow
existing properties to change uses, expand or redevelop.
VJIM"M7/I1 1)I
Overview of the Plan
The plan was initiated in 2005 in response to City Plan (2004), which identified the Northwest Area
as a priority for future subarea planning. The Northwest Subarea Plan was part of the City
Manager's 2005 — 2007 Work Plan. City and County staffagreed to work in partnership to develop
the Plan and have been closely coordinating the public outreach and management of the Plan.
The Northwest Subarea Plan will provide a more specific vision and policy framework for
neighborhoods, commercial areas, open spaces and undeveloped land. The primary objective is to
tailor City Plan principles to the specific circumstances of this area. If adopted, the plan will
become an element of City Plan.
The residents of the area and participants in the planning process developed a citizen -based vision
for the future of the Northwest Planning area, summarized in the Plan in graphic form, as an area
that should be predominately a low density residential area with stable neighborhoods. The Plan
recommends the City and County respect the area's semi -rural heritage including historic
structures, small farms, natural areas, foothills vistas and open fields. New development will be of
low intensity and fit in with the diversity and country feel of the area. New development should
safeguard natural features and protect wildlife habitats.
Public Process
An on -going and extensive outreach program was initiated which provided an inclusive audience
for each stage of the plan development. In total, three large public meetings, three smaller
workshops, and two drop -in open houses were held, along with numerous meetings with individual
stakeholders. Added to the meetings were a website, several project bulletins, direct mailings and
other forms of outreach. Staff received a wide range of opinions from attendees throughout the
study area at every meeting. The plan goals, policies, strategies and plan maps area refection of
that extensive input.
Framework Plan
The Framework Plan map is a physical plan to guide future development in the area and, together
with the goals and policies, sets a foundation for the actions the community will take to achieve the
Plan. Key elements of the Framework Plan include:
Maintain existing stable County and City neighborhoods.
New development will be low intensity, with the lowest densities near the Foothills or River
Corridor.
100
December 19, 2006
Residential Foothills District is recommended for land west of Overland Trail.
Urban Estate and Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhoods are recommended in most other
portions of the Plan area.
Commercial uses will be limited to existing areas with some potential for small-scale
redevelopment.
Open Lands and Trails Plan
The Open Lands and Trails Plan identifies areas to be protected from development, a system of
community and neighborhood trails, and a restored Soldier Creekstream corridor. The restoration
of Soldier Creek is an important component that combines stormwater, natural features, and
recreation into a new corridor. This concept has received overwhelming support from citizens,
developers, and staff during the process.
Transportation Plan
There are no new street connections to be included on the Master Street Plan. One potential new
local connection may be needed east of Taft Hill Road between Laporte Avenue and Mulberry Street,
but this street will not be shown on the Master Street Plan and is premised on the type of
development occurring in the immediate vicinity. The Plan recommends local pedestrian and
bicycle connections to supplement local street connections.
Taft Hill Workshop
In July 2006, the City sponsored a neighborhood charrette to address concerns over new
development along South Taft Hill Road between Laporte Avenue and West Mulberry Street. Since
the results ofthe charrette and follow-up public meetings were not available until after theproposed
Northwest Subarea Plan was published, a separate document was prepared for inclusion into the
Plan (Attachment 2).
The primary issues included the potential for multiple unsafe access points onto Taft and
compatibility of new development with existing single family homes. The charrette resulted in
several potential design solutions; however, the neighborhood was split between favoring keeping
the LMN zoning and downzoning. City staff is recommending a new policy be included in the
proposed Northwest Subarea Plan that would provide alternative access to Taft and a better layout
of new development in the area. The policy states new development will be required to dedicate a
right-of-way for a new north -south street in order to provide internal access away from Taft Hill
Road. New buildings will be oriented to new internal streets and new multi family structures should
be buffered from existing single family homes.
Implementation
Three items are to be implemented concurrent with the adoption of the Northwest Subarea Plan:
Amendments to the City Structure Plan
101
December 19, 2006
2. Revisions to Division 4.24 (Limited Commercial) of the Land Use Code
3. Rezoning of 4.8 acres near the northeast corner of West Vine Drive and North
Shields Street.
1. Amendments to the Structure Plan
The Proposed Framework Plan includes several changes to the City Structure Plan map,
including:
Foothills Edge west of Overland Trail (replacing Urban Estate). This change
acknowledges the close connection to the nearby foothills and provides for better
protection of significant natural resources and views of the foothills.
Commercial Corridor District designation at:
1. the southeast corner of Vine/Sunset, northeast corner of Laporte/Sunset,
2. northeast corner of Laporte/Taft, along Laporte Avenue at the Forney site,
and
3. northern portions near the Vine/Shields intersection.
These are areas that already have existing commercial uses and are zoned for
commercial or industrial uses by the County.
A newstream corridor designation beginning at Mulberry/Overland and ending near
Vine/Hanna ("Soldier Creek').
2. Revisions to Division 4.24 (Limited Commercial) of the Land Use Code
The Limited Commercial District currently applies only to an area around Riverside Avenue
and allows a wide variety of commercial and residential uses. Its uses and standards are
very specific to the Riverside area and are not easily adapted to other areas of the city.
In the Northwest Subarea, there are several small commercial areas that have been in
existence for many years and contain permitted uses under the current County zoning.
However, the City Structure Plan designates all of these areas as Urban Estate or Low
Density Mixed -Use Residential. Northwest Subarea Plan policies state that these areas
should continue to contain commercial uses and that reinvestment and redevelopment can
occur ifcompatible with surrounding neighborhoods. In order to implement thispolicy, staff
recommends revisions to the Limited Commercial District so that it can apply to these
commercial areas.
The changes to the Limited Commercial District (CL) would separate the zoning district into
two parts: one would apply only to the Riverside Area and the other would apply to all other
areas. No changes to the regulations along Riverside are proposed. Areas outside of
Riverside are limited to non -auto oriented and a higher level of review is required for most
102
December 19, 2006
uses. In addition, development standards for these areas have been added to enhance ofthe
compatibility of non-residential buildings with surrounding single family neighborhoods.
These standards are similar to the development standards in the LMN district for non-
residential uses.
3. Rezoning of 4.8 acres near the northeast corner of West Vine Drive and North Shields
Street
Three parcels are recommended for rezoning from Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood
to Limited Commercial. This change would implement the Framework Plan using the
revised Limited Commercial Zone District. The property owners have been contacted and
support the rezoning. "
Timothy Wilder, City Planner, stated the Northwest Subarea Plan was the culmination of 18 months
of work between the City and the County. The Plan would be a road map for the future of this area
and provide a voice and common framework for residents. He presented visual information showing
the study area boundaries. There were about 5,200 area residents and 4.3 square miles in the area.
The largest business in the area was Forney Industries with several hundred employees and there
were numerous other smaller businesses. There were existing schools in the area: Poudre High
School, Lincoln Junior High School, and Irish Elementary School. He stated 85% of the area was
currently unincorporated and it was important to have a cooperative effort between the City and the
County. Most of the area was subdivided into existing lots and there was a variety of densities and
types of housing. The City provided much of the utility services in the area but there were also
smaller utilities. He presented visual information showing existing development patterns ranging
from vacant areas surrounded by existing residential subdivisions, gravel mining operations (future
water storage), and a 100 acre natural area. The Plan focused primarily on the development potential
for the smaller areas of vacant land. There were three primary areas for Commercial: Vine and
Shields, LaPorte east of Taft Hill, and the LaPorte and Taft Hill intersection. There had been good
public participation throughout the process and a website and other types of forums.
The vision was developed at a workshop between residents and City and County staff. The vision
for the area was low density housing with stable neighborhoods; minimal changes to existing
subdivisions; new development that would be low in density and compatible in character with
existing uses; unique image and a country feel with views of the foothills; small commercial uses
that would not be extended into different locations; connected open lands and access to recreation
and open lands; a sense of being on the edge of the community with quick access to the foothills and
Poudre River corridor; pleasant and safe travel for all modes; historic and cultural heritage; and
independent character valuing self reliance and helping your neighbors while minimizing the amount
of government influence. The Plan recommended low density residential uses with lower densities
closer to the foothills and the edge of the Growth Management Area. The Plan recommended
maintaining stable City and County neighborhoods. A draft framework plan was included in the
Subarea Plan and showed several designations: LMN with a maximum of eight dwelling units per
acre, a potential Neighborhood Center at the northeast corner of Taft Hill and LaPorte, Urban Estate
with a clustering optional provision, Poudre River Corridor with clustering and priority open space
acquisition, and Residential Foothills with priority open space acquisition. Some areas of existing
103
December 19, 2006
Commercial were identified as Limited Commercial on the framework plan. One of the
implementation actions was to make three amendments to the Structure Plan: a change from Urban
Estate to Foothills west of Overland Trail, a new stream corridor for Soldier Creek, and changes
from LMN to Limited Commercial for isolated commercial areas. The Plan introduced design
guidelines to identify particular elements of a development needed to achieve compatibility with
existing neighborhoods. Commercial uses should continue to be small in scale and compatible with
surrounding neighborhoods. In these areas, uses could expand or redevelop as long as they met
building standards, maximum sizes and hours of operation development standards. The Plan
identified areas for protection, including land near the foothills and Poudre River. Where public
acquisition was not possible, clustering ofnew development was being recommended. He presented
visual information showing priority open lands and stated these priorities were consistent with the
Land Conservation and Stewardship Plan.
Soldier Creek was an important new component of the Plan and the recommendation was to combine
the stormwater elements with natural features and possibly a recreation trail. Positive support had
been received for this idea. There were community -serving and neighborhood -serving trails
identified in the Plan and the difference between the two types was that community -serving trails
linked to regional destinations and the neighborhood -serving trails served to people within and
between neighborhoods and to internal destinations. The recommendation was for public support
of the community -serving trails and initiation of neighborhood -serving trails by the residents or
through new development. Existing parks were sufficient to serve the existing and future population
and there were recommended park enhancements. The primary barrier to travel through this area
was a lack of east -west connecting collector or local streets. It would be difficult to provide new
streets and the Plan's recommendation was that trail connections be provided as an alternative. The
Plan showed the possibility of new connector between LaPorte Avenue and Vine Drive if and when
development occurred.
There were goals to protect historic resources and provide cultural -historic interpretation
opportunities. The area had a rich history and most development took place along arterial streets.
The goal of the Plan was to survey, identify and protect historic resources. The Plan recommended
that many projects should be initiated by residents and residents needed to be closely involved in
public and private projects. Ongoing communication between local government and residents would
be important for the implementation of the Plan. Implementation action items included amendments
to the Limited Commercial District to enable this zoning to be placed on existing commercial sites
in this area and to be consistent with the framework plan. Council was being asked to rezone
properties within the City limits at the northeast corner of Vine and Shields in conformity with the
amended Structure Plan. Four boards had reviewed this project and unanimously recommended
approval and the Parks and Recreation Board decided not to take a vote on this project. The County
Planning Commission approved the Plan on November 15, 2006.
Mayor Hutchinson stated there were two related Resolutions and two Ordinances and citizens could
comment on any or all. The Council would vote on each separately. Each audience participant
would have five minutes to speak.
104
December 19. 2006
Karen Rose, 5200 Parkway Circle East, asked how many property owners were in this area and if
they had all been notified of these changes. She would also like to know the number of property
owners who actually participated in the 18-month process. This Plan showed 73 identified staff and
"bureaucrats" participated in the Plan and it did not identify property owners. She noted that in the
minutes of the Natural Resources Advisory Board, concerns were expressed that open space not be
used to create a boundary or an enclave in this area. Possible future open space purchases were
identified. She asked if the Natural Resources Advisory Board voted on this Plan. The Plan noted
no new parks would be necessary for this subarea but that people would still be responsible for
providing any future parks maintenance fees. She asked if the entire subarea would now come under
the City planning regulations if this passed. She would like to see information on the planned
Soldier Creek area trails and connectors.
Doug Swartz, 2232 Sunrose Way, resident of the planning area, complimented the City and County
planning staffs on the "effective public process." The Plan "quite accurately reflected the wishes of
many of the area residents." The Plan would give area residents some assurances about what might
or might not happen in the future. The Plan would help the area retain some of the qualities that
made it a "unique part" of Fort Collins. In general, he was a strong supporter of the Plan as it made
some good statements about the value of wildlife corridors and connected open space. He had
concerns this was not "translated" very well in some parts of the Plan. The Soldier Creek restoration
was a good example of a positive application. The area west of his property was called the central
Urban Estate area in the Plan and this was the "largest single chunk of undeveloped land" in the area.
The Urban Estate designation would potentially allow two units per acre in a "cookie cutter" fashion
and this would be a "travesty." The residents would try to work on a voluntary basis with the
landowners to establish a "conceptual master Plan" for the area to accommodate the housing goals
and preserve connected open space and wildlife corridor.
Heather Bartmann, 2600 West Vine Drive, stated it would be nice to have clustered housing to
protect the open wildlife corridor. Many landowners had attended the public meetings and she hoped
the Council would adopt the Plan.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if staff could address Ms. Rose's questions. Wilder stated there were 2,100
homes in the area and a large percentage were probably property owners. At least four area -wide
notifications were done i.e., to all households and businesses in the area.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the owners of vacant land also received notifications. Wilder
replied in the affirmative and stated special meetings were done for the larger property owners. The
Natural Resources Advisory Board voted unanimously in support of the project. There would be
neighborhood parkland fees associated with City developments and the parks staff was
recommending that the fees collected be earmarked for maintenance of the parks that serve the area.
Russell Legg, Larimer County Chief Planner, stated the area was in the Fort Collins-Larimer County
Growth Management Area and there was an intergovernmental agreement that provided how the City
and County would react to development improvements in this area. If the County received an
application for development on vacant land or rezoning of vacant land that was adjacent to City
limits and eligible for annexation, the County would ask the applicant to annex to the City at the time
of development. If the property was not eligible for annexation it would be regulated under the
105
December 19, 2006
County's jurisdiction and the County's staff would guide the development in accordance with the
adopted plans affecting the area. In this case that would be the Northwest Area Plan (if adopted by
Council) and the County regulations and the development or rezoning process for properties not
eligible for annexation. Wilder presented visual information showing the planned Soldier Creek trail
that would be consistent with the West Vine Master Plan. Most of the land abutting the proposed
trail was vacant. The development of the trail system would depend on where development
occurred. This was a conceptual look at the proposed trail and its connections.
Councilmember Kastein asked whose development guidelines were followed for areas within the
GMA outside of the City limits. Wilder stated the City's guidelines applied for properties within
the City limits and the County's regulations would apply in areas that were not eligible for
annexation.
Councilmember Kastein asked about the County's regulations for properties within the GMA i.e.,
a separate set of guidelines that "mirrored" in some ways the City's regulations. Legg stated this was
the case in areas where the County had incorporated those guidelines into its regulations.
Councilmember Kastein asked if that covered this planning area. Legg stated this was not yet the
case and the County would follow-up with implementation actions if needed. In a rezoning situation
the County had a Planned Development - PD zone that would "mimic" the uses of the applicable
City. The County had not adopted the City's design guidelines for nonresidential buildings but had
adopted them for big box developments.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the boundary of the planning area was the same as the GMA
boundary. Wilder replied in the affirmative for the north and west parts of the area. He presented
visual information showing where the GMA and Plan boundaries overlapped.
Councilmember Brown asked about the slide titled "Access to Recreation and Open Lands" and the
bullet point that stated: "The City will provide multipurpose paved trail connections depending on
available funds." He asked what the source of dollars would be for those connections. Wilder stated
some of the funds would be GOCO funds and there would need to be funding sources besides
development fees because a lot of the trails were not associated with new development.
Councilmember Brown asked if these trails would be priorities and would take money away from
other projects. Wilder stated they would have to be evaluated in comparison with other priorities
and overall community needs. There may be natural areas dollars for one trail.
Councilmember Brown asked if there would be the same source of funds for park improvements to
provide better pedestrian -bike access for parks. Wilder stated some internal connections could be
neighborhood initiated rather than City or County initiated. Projects serving existing County
neighborhoods may come from other funding sources.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he had asked at the work session how many units were being
considered and a staff follow-up memo in March indicated that there would be 2,098 new housing
units while page 25 of the subarea Plan indicated that there would be 1,234. Wilder stated staff
106
December 19. 2006
looked at the possible alternatives at several times and staff had now revised and refined the areas's
alternatives to more accurately reflect the proposed framework plan. Leslie Ellis, Clarion
Associates, consultant, stated staff initially did some analysis to determine what the current zoning
and current vacant land and parcels could accommodate (1,400 new housing units). After looking
at alternatives staff developed the final Plan that showed about 1,200 new housing units could be
accommodated by the proposed land uses and zoning.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the 2,098 number from the March memo was an even more
preliminary number. Wilder replied in the affirmative and stated the numbers on page 25 were the
latest and most accurate figures.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he would like some follow-up at some point on the use of impact fees
for maintenance of parks. Wilder stated some equipment was needed for Huidekoper Neighborhood
Park to fully develop it and it was incorrect to refer to that as "maintenance."
Councilmember Ohlson asked when the study area would be in the City and how much of the area
would be in the City. Legg stated if a developer wanted to develop property adjacent to the City
limits, the development would be in the City's "right-of-way." Some County subdivisions that were
already developed would possibly never be in the City. An enclave would be difficult to accomplish
in this area due to the geography. The goal was to have all new development sign an agreement to
annex at the time the property becomes adjacent to the City. City Manager Atteberry stated there
were longstanding agreements between the City and the County on these issues. These agreements
were "significant" and spelled out the relationships between the City and the County on a daily basis.
These policies were not unique to this subarea.
Councilmember Ohlson stated there was reference to sensitive areas and one item related to
exploring the idea of establishing an east -west wildlife corridor between the foothills, Lee Lake open
lands north of Vine and the Poudre River. The "residents of the area" were designated as having the
"lead responsibility." He asked why this responsibility was not to be shared among the residents,
City and County. Wilder stated staff believed there was no "obvious place" to designate such a
corridor and there was a need for the landowners and residents of the area to talk about the
possibility of a wildlife corridor. There were issues with connections to either end of the corridor
due to existing subdivisions. Staff believed it was a responsibility of the residents, given the lack
of identified natural features to provide an initiative for this. This was consistent with the value of
self-reliance.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the City had a mini -grant program at one time and it might need to
be reestablished. The purpose was to give mini -grants to neighborhoods to make connections to the
natural areas. Open space and natural areas monies could be used for the City to acquire some of
the larger tracts of natural areas and provide trails. It was a different issue for connections between
parks. He noted an open lands map was provided and asked about mapping of"sensitive areas" that
might be developed and that needed to be sensitive to stream and river corridors, wetlands, special
species, etc. Wilder stated a map of sensitive areas was provided in Appendix A. Ms. Ellis stated
Map A-7 showed natural habitat and features. Wilder presented visual information on the sensitive
areas.
107
December 19, 2006
Councilmember Ohlson asked for a summary of what was found. Wilder stated the map being
presented was consistent with the existing inventory map.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if most of the sensitive areas were in areas targeted for acquisition or
in areas that would be developed "sensitively." Wilder stated most of these areas were priorities for
acquisition along the Poudre River and west of Overland Trail.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the City was actively pursuing acquisition of those areas. Wilder
replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Resolution
2006-120.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he attended the first "raucous" meeting and complimented staff on
the way the public involvement meeting was handled. He commented one of the slides in the
presentation indicated one goal was to make Soldier Creek another Spring Creek and he believed the
City would do Spring Creek differently, if it could, with regard to setbacks for houses and trails. He
had asked at the work session about guidelines for trail placement and there were "nine words" that
outlined the promised guidelines. Wilder stated the Plan indicated that the policy would be that trails
would be designed and sited to minimize impacts.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the City needed to be very careful in placing trails. He hoped the City
"delivered what was promised" with this Plan i.e., keeping the area about the same as it is now. This
was the best work that could be done with "fairness to all parties including landowners."
Mayor Hutchinson stated he viewed the goal of making Soldier Creek more of a Spring Creek as
"conceptual" rather than a "blueprint." Wilder stated the Soldier Creek area would be different than
Spring Creek because of different patterns and constraints.
Councilmember Roy stated he would like to know at some point how Soldier Creek could be kept
as a continuous water source. He shared the concerns about making trails sensitive to the creek. He
was glad to see the recognition in the Plan of the historical significance of much of the area. The
community as a whole did a good job of "crafting" this Plan.
Councilmember Kastein stated this was a "job well done" and a good example of the City and
County working together with an "engaged citizenry."
Councilmember Manvel stated this was a good example of how the City and County could work
together to "make things happen." This would give the area residents and developers a "clear
picture" of what the future could be. The Plan was not "heavy handed" and it appeared that most
people were happy with what had been done.
December 19, 2006
Mayor Hutchinson stated this had been a great process and this was a great Plan for an important
area. This was a "validation" of the City's partnership with the County and the importance of the
intergovernmental agreement.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt Resolution
2006-121. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and
Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to adopt Ordinance
No. 208, 2006 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel,
Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt Ordinance No.
209, 2006 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson,
Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Executive Session Authorized
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adjourn into
Executive Session pursuant to Section 2-31(a)(2) and (3) of the City Code for the purpose ofineeting
with the City Attorney regarding legal issues and possible sale of real property. The vote on the
motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy
and Weidmat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
("Secretary's Note: The Council adjourned into Executive Session at 7:50 p.m. and reconvened
following the Executive Session at 9:05 p.m.)
Ordinance No. 192,2006
Making Various Amendments to the
City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. Adopted as Amended on Second Reading.
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
109
December 19, 2006
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On December 5, 2006, Council voted 5 — 2 (Nays: Manvel, Roy) to approve the Ordinance on First
Reading. At First Reading, Council directed that two changes be made to the Ordinance. With
regard to election signs, the Ordinance has been revised to reflect the 90-day limitation prior to an
election.
With regard to temporary banners, the Ordinance provides Council with three options.
Finally, as indicated at First Reading, staff is deleting an alternative compliance provision as it
relates to the standard of addressing building mass in the Downtown zone in the Canyon Avenue and
Civic Center sub -districts.
BACKGROUND
The three changes since First Reading are summarized as follows:
1. Election Signs
The Ordinance has been revised to limit the duration of election signs such that they cannot be
displayed earlier than 90 days prior to the election for which the sign relates.
2. Temporary Banners
During First Reading discussion, City Council members expressed concern with regards to the lack
of any limitation on the number of banners that can be displayed at any one time. In response
therefore, staff is presenting three options to Section 13 of the Ordinance for consideration on
Second Reading. Established businesses will not receive the bonus days that are offered to new
businesses and non-profit organizations, but will be affected by the new regulation since all the
options impose restrictions on size and/or number of banners allowed.
Option A
Option A is the wording as approved on First Reading. This option is less restrictive than the
current regulation in that an extra 20 days per year is allowed for non-profit organizations and for
new businesses during the first year of operation. The option is more restrictive than the current
regulation, however, since a size limitation (40 square feet) is implemented for the first time.
Option B
Option B continues to contain the provisions of Option A, but adds a further restriction for both
established and new businesses as well for non profits by limiting the number of banners that can
be displayed. This is a new restriction since the current regulation does not limit the number of
banners. This option would limit the number allowed to one per street frontage, except that
110
December 19, 2006
additional banners can be displayed as long as the aggregate squarefootage ofall banners does not
exceed 40 square feet.
Option C
Option C is the most restrictive option. It limits the maximum size and restricts the number of
banners to only one per street frontage, regardless of whether or not the banner is smaller than the
maximum size allowed.
3. Deleting Alternative Compliance Provision
This section was inadvertently retained in the Ordinance as presented on First Reading. In one of
the earlier drafts of this Code Change, this Alternative Compliance provision referred back to the
preceding standard relating to Reduction in Mass which, at that time, contained prescriptive
metrics.
(There are several sections of the Code where standards containing specific measurements are
accompanied by an Alternative Compliance provision for the purpose of allowing superior design
without triggering a Request for Modification.)
Now that the standard has been finalized to allow for more discretion, and the prescriptive metric
approach has been replaced by the current language, an Alternative Compliance provision is no
longer necessary.
The key point is to allow creative solutions without over -reliance on prescriptive standards and thus
lessen the need for a Request for Modification.
Now, in the event that the discretionary language related to the Reduction in the Mass of the
Building for buildings over six stories or 85 feet, in the Canyon Avenue and Civic Center sub -
districts, is not sufficient, an applicant is always allowed to avail themselves of the Request for
Modification procedure.
Staff considers this deletion to be a housekeeping change, not a substantive change. "
Mayor Hutchinson stated staff would be asked to make a presentation on the two interrelated items
(agenda items 27 and 28) and that citizens would be able to comment on either or both agenda item.
He stated the Council would vote on the items separately.
Clark Mapes, City Planner, stated the last remaining issue on this item was a half block area on
which Council had requested more information at the time of First Reading. He presented visual
information showing the subject half block area, the parking lot on the property, and a building
occupied by Ulrich Blueprint. Those were considered to be redevelopment parcels. The half block
was surrounded on three sides by Neighborhood Conservation Zone Districts. The Downtown
Strategic Plan recommended as the appropriate height a 3-4 story and 45-foot f scale of building on
this property. Staff agreed with this recommendation. The Strategic Plan's principle was that tall
buildings in this part of the downtown should blend with the neighborhoods and a "wall" effect
111
December 19, 2006
should be avoided. He presented visual information showing the 3-4 story height Vaught -Frye
building as an example of the scale envisioned in the Strategic Plan. Increasing the height limit to
the next category of height would mean doubling the height of the building. The owners contended
that the Cortina building would be an appropriate scale for a building on the half block area. The
Cortina building and the Rocky Mountain Bank building were good examples of the 5-6 story (85-
foot t) scale that was requested by the owners of the half block. The owners suggested a building
like Cortina would be appropriate because the design of the building would be high quality. Staff
contended that regardless of the quality of the building, the scale was not appropriate for the half
block because it would create a "wall" effect. The issue was the appropriate height to state in the
plan as the City's vision for this half block. Information was available on the amendment to the
Downtown Strategic Plan.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if there was staff input on the election sign issue. Mapes stated staff was
available to answer questions on other issues.
Mayor Hutchinson stated each audience participant would have five minutes to speak.
Jack Vahrenwald, President of the Savings Building Condominium Association, owner of the Key
Bank building at 125 South Howes Street and associated parking lots, requested that the height limit
be set at 85 feet. Only four blocks in this area were proposed to have a 45- foot height limit. The
other three blocks were mostly residential in nature and were bordered on at least two sides with
residential property. The Savings Building parking lot had only one bordering property that could
be classified as a single-family residence. This run-down rental property was the only residential
property in proximity to the parking lot. The properties to the west were used for commercial
purposes. Staff had commented about wanting to create a buffer between the buildings and the
residential areas and there was an "arbitrary and subjective buffer" in the NCB parcel on the western
side of the properties. The Savings Building lot already had a "natural buffer" because there were
business properties across the alley from it. The Savings Building lot was different than others
proposed for a 45-foot height limit and it was more like the Cortina lot or the west part of the Rocky
Mountain Bank building where there were no residences across the street. The Savings Building
property should have an 85-foot height limit like the Cortina and Rocky Mountain Bank properties.
He asked that the proposed Ordinance be amended to allow a building of up to 85 feet to be
considered for the Savings Building lot. He noted his appreciation that the Council and staff had
made a concerted effort to coordinate and balance the needs of the City with the desires of the
property owners.
Councilmember Roy asked about the residential character of the block directly west of the subject
property. He believed it was inaccurate to say that there were only businesses and no residential
directly west of the property. Mapes stated there was residential housing in that area in the
Neighborhood Conservation Zone District. This Zone District had a "heavy bias" toward retaining
the existing buildings while allowing conversion to office use.
Councilmember Roy believed there were eight single-family homes in the area in question. This was
definitely a residential area. Mapes stated the Zone District acknowledged the possibility of
conversion to offices and conversion back to residential.
112
December 19, 2006
Councilmember Kastein asked what would be affected by a potential change on this block. City
Attorney Roy stated the map showing maximum permissible heights would be affected. An
amendment to the maximum permissible height in a particular location would need to be reflected
by a revision to that map. Mapes presented visual information showing what the map would look
like with this revision and without the revision. The maximum height would be changed for this
parcel from 45 feet to 85 feet.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated there were other amendments to the Land Use Code that needed
to be considered. The three controversial issues were building heights, election signs and temporary
banners. She asked about the process to consider all of these issues. City Attorney Roy suggested
beginning with a motion to adopt the Ordinance with Option A, B or C relating to banners and
pennants. The maker of the motion could also propose other amendments in the motion. Any
amendments to the main motion could be treated in the order in which they were made and seconded.
Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification about the election signs issue. City Attorney Roy
stated the current Code was for a 45-day limit on posting. On First Reading, the Council directed
that the pre -election posting duration be changed to 90 days. The Ordinance as presented on First
Reading would have eliminated the pre -election duration limit.
Councilmember Kastein asked what was before the Council for consideration. City Attorney Roy
stated the Ordinance that was before the Council would change the duration to 90 days. Staff s
recommendation was still to eliminate the pre -election duration limit.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the City's candidate guidelines mentioned the time limitations for
posting election signs. City Clerk Krajicek replied in the affirmative and stated the guidelines would
be revised in accordance with the Council's decision on the Ordinance.
Councilmember Ohlson asked for clarification of the agenda item summary language that indicated
the Board was assured that a project could satisfy one of six criteria and still be denied based on non-
compliance with the Code. There were only four rather than six criteria in Resolution 2006-131.
Mapes stated this issue was discussed with the Board the day after First Reading of the Ordinance
and six criteria were discussed with the Board. Since the Board discussion, the six criteria were
condensed into four criteria.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Ordinance
No. 192, 2006 on Second Reading, including adoption of the First Reading version of election sign
time limitations, Option A relating to banners and amending the building height map on page 9 to
include a 5-6 story building on the half block parcel.
City Attorney Roy read for the record the First Reading version of Section 11 of Ordinance No. 192,
2006 relating to election signs: " Election signs authorized by Section 3.8.7(C)(1)(g) or 3.8.7(D)(2)
shall be allowed on a lot at any time prior to the election date to which the sign relates and shall be
removed within four days after the election date." He stated Option A relating to banners was
included in the packet and the motion would amend the map on page 9 from 45 to 85 feet for the
specific location.
113
December 19, 2006
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the motion was to raise the height limit for the parcel in question
by potentially two stories (40 feet).
Mayor Hutchinson stated the motion was to raise the height limit for that parcel from 45 feet to 85
feet.
Councilmember Ohlson would not support doing that because it "seemed arbitrary" and staff had
worked on "compromises" on this for a long time. He asked if a building could go even higher now
if the other criteria were met and if the building could have been higher under the current provision
if the criteria were met. Mapes stated all standards could be considered for modification.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he would not support the motion because buildings could already go
higher if a case was made that design and other criteria made a higher building acceptable. This
would give them "carte blanche to go higher without sensitivity to the neighborhood." It would now
be easier for nonprofit organizations and new businesses to have banners, which he supported, but
it was not good policy to say there would be no limit on the number of banners (Option A). He
stated he would prefer Option C as the strictest option on banners.
Mayor Hutchinson stated there was a motion on the table and amendments could be proposed.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to adopt Option B
rather than Option A relating to banners.
Councilmember Manvel stated banners were useful but allowing an unlimited number of banners
was not good policy and was "totally antithetical' toward the sign code. Option B was more
"reasonable" and he did not see any reason to allow an unlimited number of banners simply because
they were temporary. It was important to preserve the "view shed" on City streets and there had been
much "abuse" of the use of banners in recent months. He would not support Option A.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated this would apply to new businesses and nonprofit organizations
rather than "banners any time, any place." There would be a limitation on the size of banners and
there would not be enough new businesses to make this a problem.
Councilmember Manvel stated the limit on the number of banners would apply to all businesses and
the change in the number of days would apply only to new businesses and nonprofit organizations.
Councilmember Ohlson stated existing businesses would be affected to a certain extent.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated this provided clarification and she now understood that the number
of banners would not relate only to new businesses and nonprofit organizations. She asked if Option
B would relate to any business. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative. Peter Barnes, Zoning
Supervisor, stated references to size or numbers in all three of the options would apply to any
establishment that wanted to obtain a banner permit.
114
December 19, 2006
Councilmember Kastein commented the only difference was that existing businesses could display
banners for 20 days and new businesses could display banners for 40 days.
The vote on the motion to amend the main motion to change to Option B rather than Option A
relating to banners was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel,
Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the main motion had been amended to change to Option B relating to
banners.
Councilmember Kastein asked what was currently in the Downtown Strategic Plan for building
heights on this block. Mapes stated there were references to 168 feet (12 stories) and to another
standard in another section that provided that a building over 56 feet in height would have to be
reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board under a specific compatibility standard dealing with
height, bulk, mass and scale. The allowed height would be what was found to be appropriate within
the context.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the proposed change was for a change in the height on the map.
Mapes stated the change would make what was appropriate clearer up front. The question for
Council was to determine what was appropriate for the vision for this parcel.
Councilmember Roy stated he would vote against the Ordinance because of the relationship between
downtown and the residential area on the other side of this block. It was not appropriate or fair for
the neighborhood to have to live with a higher building at that location.
Councilmember Weitkunat did not believe this was "arbitrary" or "unfair." This property was
different than the other blocks in the area because it did not have the same neighboring residential
component. Height limits were "arbitrary" to begin with and she viewed the change as a
"possibility." She believed the 85-foot height limit would fit because there was no residential right
next to it.
Councilmember Roy stated just west of this property on this block there were at least eight single-
family homes.
Councilmember Manvel stated it was important to note that the use of the structures changed over
time from office to residential and back. As downtown filled with new "big business" buildings
some of the structures with offices could become residential again. There was a strong staff
recommendation for feathering with the NCB Zone District along the west side of this area. The use
on that block was different when the zoning lines were drawn.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to amend the main
motion to change the height limit for this Meldrum property from 85 feet to 45 feet.
115
December 19, 2006
Councilmember Ohlson stated he supported height when done appropriately and responsibly as good
urban planning. The better the "downtown core fabric" of Fort Collins was designed, the better off
the City would be economically. The Council was elected to balance individual rights with the
community good. Staff s recommendation was for feathering and the developer could already come
forward with a higher building that was "great architecture" that could be approved if the project met
the criteria. Mapes stated this was correct and this was part of the reason for staffs
recommendation. Staff believed it was better to use the modification process.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the building could be higher if certain criteria were met and he was
not persuaded that the 85-foot height limit was needed.
Councilmember Manvel stated the height would be 3-4 stories if his amendment was adopted and
that this would be a "major building with a lot of space." The amendment would mean an
appropriate use that would feather out into the neighborhoods.
Councilmember Kastein stated he supported the higher height limit because future uses were
unknown. The "feathering" and a 45-foot limit would be consistent in this block. There were some
exceptions. The current height limit was 168 feet and there was "subjectivity" in determining if the
criteria would be met for appropriate mass and scale. He stated 85 feet was considerably less than
the 168 feet and was not "wildly out of place." The owner had a `vision that was slightly different"
than the current plan. He would like to leave room for that vision and would like to err on the side
of "flexibility" rather than limiting the property owner's vision for the property.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the property owner would not be limited to 85 feet and could go
higher if the criteria were met.
Councilmember Kastein noted Councilmember Ohlson indicated he would support higher buildings
than 45 feet if they met certain criteria. He stated this should also apply if the height limit was 85
feet, if the "use was phenomenal" and had public benefits. The decision would need to be made in
the future.
Councilmember Roy stated this site was part of a neighborhood and the neighborhood's vision
needed to be considered. This was on the edge of a "vibrant and strong" neighborhood. This was
an opportunity to ensure feathering and an appropriate design element. He stated the neighborhood
should not be "walled out" of the downtown.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated height limits were "arbitrary" and groups of people had different
perceptions about what should happen. There were options for mitigation and appropriate
development. This was a small part of the overall plan and just because buildings could be 150 feet
tall did not mean they would actually be built. The City had good design standards. This was a plan
that would provide some direction and was not "set in stone." This "set the tone" for changes in this
area. She noted many of the residences now housed commercial entities. It was not possible to
predict what would be built but it would have good building standards and planning.
116
December 19, 2006
Mayor Hutchinson stated height limits were "subjective" rather than "arbitrary." Standards called
for judgements. He appreciated the citizen's comments about cooperation between the City
government and the property owners. This was a situation in which "subjective criteria" could be
used. Feathering would be improved by changing the height limit from 168 to 85 feet. There was
a piece of property across the street that could have a building 155 feet high. There would be an
abrupt transition if the motion to amend was adopted and he would oppose the motion to amend to
a height limit of 45 feet.
The vote on the motion to amend the main motion to set the height limit at 45 feet rather than 85 feet
was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Manvel, Ohlson and Roy. Nays: Councilmembers Brown,
Hutchinson, Kastein and Weitkunat.
THE MOTION TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION FAILED.
Councilmember Kastein stated the current plan for the downtown was for a height limit of
potentially 168 feet. This action would provide more assurance to developers and people living at
the periphery.
Councilmember Manvel stated the movement for "definiteness" in the standards was an
improvement. The new banner rule would also be an improvement. He would vote in support of
the motion.
Councilmember Ohlson stated this would be a "step backwards." The 168-foot building was "never
going to happen" and it would now be much easier to build tall buildings without "quality." He
questioned whether a majority of the Council would ever say no to a development proposal.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated she was "optimistic" about these changes. The City was able to
"make things work well." She would support the motion because this would make things more
predictable and help avoid "catastrophes" such as the Steele's building. There would be higher
quality because of the standards.
Councilmember Roy stated it was important to note that neighborhoods a full block away were
"vehemently" opposed to the Steele's lot structure because of the height. There would be
neighborhood opposition to future proposals for tall buildings.
Councilmember Ohlson stated some of the floor holders receiving a waiver tonight to build higher
actually opposed the Steele's building.
Mayor Hutchinson stated he was "optimistic" this was not "rubber stamping" of any project. This
was a "thoughtful" and "subjective" decision on which thoughtful people could disagree. This was
a good step in the right direction.
The vote on the main motion as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown,
Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Ohlson and Roy.
117
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2006-131
December 19, 2006
Amending the Downtown Strategic
Plan to Add Criteria Relating to Increasing the
Maximum Allowable Height in the Canyon Avenue
and Civic Center Sub -Districts of the Downtown Zone Adopted
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the December S, 2006 City Council meeting, in consideration ofthe Fall 2006 update ofthe Land
Use Code, Council directed Staff to amend the Downtown Strategic Plan (DSP) to capture Council's
discussion of possible factors to consider in future requests for Modification of Standards to
increase building height above limits in the proposed standards.
These considerations are relevant to criteria for Modification of Standards in Section 2.8 of the
Land Use Code.
BACKGROUND
Council acknowledged that block -by -block building height limits in the two affected Downtown sub -
districts represented a delicate balance between multiple competing interests. These height limits
are accompanied by design standards to ensure that tall buildings downtown are attractive at both
the street and upper levels and responsive to the urban context.
While height limits provide predictability, Council desires to acknowledge that a future project may
need flexibility in height limits to accommodate unique public benefits. Examples of such public
benefits discussed during the process are noted in a proposed section 2.2.3 b. to be added to the
DSP. The proposed new paragraph is shown below in the context of the rest of section 2.2, which
is found on p. 39 of the DSP.
DSP SECTION TO BE AMENDED:
2.2 Urban Design
2.2.1. Continue to allow taller buildings (more than 3 stories), to support the market
recommendationsfor redevelopment in the Infill/Transition Area, and to reinforce downtown
as the primary focal point of Fort Collins from a community appearance and design
standpoint.
a. Redevelopment will likely require new buildings that are larger than the
majority of existing buildings in the area. Redevelopment is more financially
feasible with relatively larger buildings, particularly ifparking is to be provided in
118
December 19, 2006
structures rather than on surface parking lots. In addition, the various
transportation and market benefits of more jobs and housing close to the core are
more significant with relatively larger buildings.
b. As stated in previous plans and affirmed in this planning process, this area
is THE primaryplace to allow a dynamic, mixed urban environment with buildings
of widely varied sizes and fractions. Architecture, streets, and other spaces can be
more dramatic with relatively larger buildings as suggested by market
recommendations for redevelopment.
2.2.2. Acknowledge that taller buildings affect various interests differently, with both
positive and negative effects; and set standards forscale and caref d design so that negative
effects are considered and mitigated (e.g., changes to historic character, quality of life in
nearby neighborhoods, sunshinepatterns in adjacent spaces, views, and large existing trees).
a. Architectural creativity and individual expression should include
responsiveness to a framework of thoughtful standards for height, mass, and design.
The purpose being to blend recommendations for future redevelopment with the
area's defining characteristics that will remain as part ofthe evolving character over
time. See 3.2.2 for more detail.
2.2.3. Continue to allow for modifications to standards within the framework of
development review, if justified by creative, responsive designs that meet the general
parameters for taller buildings in a different way.
a. Continue to acknowledge the possibility of creative, negotiated design
solutions that fulfill the purpose of a standard in a given developmentproject, yet do
not meet the letter of the standards.
b. Matters to consider for modification requests for taller buildings include the
provision of
• exceptional architecture that exceeds the standards contained in the Land
Use Code;
• office space described as "Class A " by the Urban Land Institute for a major
primary employer;
• significant public parking; and
• exceptional building performance demonstrated by Silver, Gold or higher
LEED. Certification.
SUMMARY OF PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD DISCUSSION
The Planning and Zoning Board considered this MinorAmendment to the Downtown Strategic Plan
at their December 2006 meeting. Their key points are summarized as follows:
119
December 19, 2006
The Board agreed that the Downtown Strategic Plan should contain advisory direction that
would help guide future decisions on projects that request building heights above the
prescribed maximums.
The Board asked for and received assurance that requirements of Section 2.8 of the Land
Use Code, Request For Modification, remain applicable and are not subordinated by the
proposed amendment.
For example, the Board asked for and received assurance that a proposed project could
satisfy one of the six new criteria and still be denied based on not complying with Section
2.8.2(H) which requires that:
"...the decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if finds that the
granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, ... "
It is very important to the Board that the proposed amendment be used judiciously. The
adding of advisory criteria to the Downtown Strategic Plan for the granting of additional
height over prescribed maximums shall not constitute an entitlement.
The Board emphasized that any one individual project gaining additional height by this
proposed amendment does not set a precedent for any future projects.
There was consideration of setting a limit on the amount of additional height over the
standard that would be allowed. For example, should a building permitted to have 12
stories be granted a modification to have an unlimited amount of additional height? Or
should such building be restricted such that any additional height would be limited to no
more than a 50% of the standard (six extra stories)? Or would a 33% (four extra stories)
upper limit be more appropriate?
Ultimately, the Board decided that while the concept had merit, any percentage selected
would be arbitrary. It would be better to rely on Article Three standards in the Land Use
Code than to place such a cap in the Downtown Strategic Plan.
With recognition that our City is experiencing a growing population and a dynamic
Downtown, the Board indicated that erring on the side of flexibility should be a guiding
principle. Efficient utilization ofland in the Growth Management Area and urbanization of
Downtown are seen as positive attributes of City Plan. The Board is aware that the issue
of building heights in the Downtown is sensitive and that the Land Use Code revisions
adopted on First Reading represent a compromise. All points of view have merit and should
be respected and balanced as the City moves forward with new development in the
Downtown. "
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weid"mat, to adopt
Resolution 2006-131. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson and
Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Roy.
120
December 19. 2006
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to Signs and Displays in the Public
Right -of -Way: Ordinance No. 210, 2006, Adopted on First
Reading: Ordinance No. 211, 2006, Postponed to January 16, 2007.
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 210, 2006, Amending Various Provisions of the City Code
Pertaining to Unattended Displays on City Property.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 211, 2006, Amending Certain Provisions of the City Code
Pertaining to Signs in the Right -of -Way.
These ordinances address the placement of signs, displays and other encroachments in the public
rights -of -way and on other property owned by the City. The first prohibits all unattended displays
other than newsracks. The second deals with the City's ability to remove illegally placed signs from
public property and destroy them.
BACKGROUND
Ordinance No. 210, 2006, Amending Various Provisions of the City Code Pertaining to
Unattended Displays on City Property.
This Ordinance clarifies in writing the City's policy regarding the placement on City property of
signs and other displays that may constitute constitutionally protected speech. Essentially, the
policy is that any such unattended displays are prohibited, with the exception of newsracks, which
must, under the relevant case law, be allowed in the public rights -of -way. The Ordinance amends
various sections of the City Code that deal with this subject in different contexts such as sidewalks,
parks and natural areas. It also establishes an expedited right of appeal from the denial of a parks
or natural areas permit whenever the activity or event for which a permit is sought involves speech
or other behavior protected by the First Amendment.
Ordinance No. 211, 2006, Amending Certain Provisions of the City Code Pertaining to Signs in
the Right -of -Way.
This Ordinance combines two sections of the Code dealing with the placement ofsigns in the public
right-of-way. Such signs are prohibited by Section 24-1 of the Code, subject to several exceptions.
There is another section of the Code (Section 17-42) that also deals with the posting of signs on
publicly owned property.
These two provisions of the Code differ as to the way in which signs and handbills that violate these
provisions maybe removed by the City and subsequently destroyed. Section 24-1 states that notice
121
December 19, 2006
must be sent to the sign owner, if known, and the owner has ten days to retrieve the sign. If the
owner cannot be ascertained or if he or she fails to collect the sign after notice, the City may dispose
of the sign in addition to issuing a citation.
Section 17-42 establishes a more expeditious process for removing and disposing of signs. Under
that provision, the person whose business, interests or activities are advertised, furthered or
promoted by a sign posted in violation of the section must, within 24 hours after being notified by
the City, remove the sign or else it will be summarily removed and destroyed without further notice.
The person who illegally posted the sign and/or failed to remove it after notice can be cited for
violation of this Code section.
Staffbelieves that the more summaryprocess contained in Section 17-42 is preferable for these kinds
of violations because it does not require the City to remove and keep the illegal signs pending a
response by the responsible party. Therefore, staff is recommending that this process be consistently
used for the removal ofall signs illegally posted on public property and this Ordinance would make
that change. In addition, the Ordinance would provide that, if an illegally posted handbill or
illegally placed sign is found on public property and the person responsible for the handbill or sign
has been contacted within the preceding ten days for a similar violation, the City may summarily
remove and dispose of the handbill or sign without further notice.
The Ordinance would also clarify that Section 17-42(d) prohibits the placement ofadvertisingf iers
on motor vehicles without the owner's consent, and it would also prohibit the fastening of
advertising materials to residences if the owner or occupant of the residence has instructed a
particular company to discontinue such practice. "
City Manager Atteberry introduced the agenda item.
Ingrid Decker, Assistant City Attorney, stated two Ordinances were being presented for Council
consideration. Ordinance No. 210, 2006 was intended to make clear in the Code the City's current
policy that, with few exceptions, unattended privately owned displays were not permitted on City
property. Ordinance No. 211, 2006 would amend various sections of the Code relating to posting
notices on public or private property and how the City disposes of unclaimed, lost, abandoned or
stolen property including illegally posted signs. The City had historically not allowed private parties
to place unattended signs or displays on City property, with a few exceptions including newsracks,
neighborhood entry signs and signs or displays put up as part of a permitted special event. The
policy was not clearly stated in the Code. The main purpose of Ordinance No. 210, 2006 was to
amend the Code to more clearly state the City's policy. Section 1-3 of the Ordinance amended
several subsections of the encroachment permit provisions (Division 3 of Chapter 23 of the Code).
The key change was to add a statement to Subsection 23-83(e) that, with the exception of newsracks,
no privately owned unattended displays that were intended to convey a meaning or a message shall
be permitted as encroachments. Newsracks were excepted because for practical and legal reasons,
there needed to be a place for them in public rights -of -way. Staff anticipated bringing forward a
separate Ordinance in February that would specifically regulate newsracks. References to other
constitutionally protected speech would be removed from Subsection 23-83(c) and (e). Other
provisions of the Ordinance were a cleanup of existing language to clarify that encroachment permit
122
December 19, 2006
provisions were intended to apply only to City property and public rights -of -way and not necessarily
to all publically owned property within the City (which could include County and State property).
Sections 4-7 of Ordinance No. 210, 2006 would amend the regulations in Chapter 23 regarding
posting of signs in recreation areas, parks or natural areas. The amendments would add a specific
reference to displays in the parks and natural areas sign provisions. There would be different
regulations for parks and natural areas because of the different uses. Section 6 of the Ordinance
covered parks and would provide that erecting a display or posting a sign or other written materials
would be allowed only if it was authorized by a permit from the Service Area and that such items
could not be left in a park from 11:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. when the parks were closed. This change
was intended to recognize that parks are traditionally considered to be a public forum for the First
Amendment and there was a need for flexibility for hanging of signs for events that did not
necessarily require a permit. The intent was to place reasonable restrictions on how or when signs
or displays were posted in parks. Displays, signs and other written materials would be allowed in
natural areas only if they were related to another activity for which the Service Area had issued a
permit that specifically authorized the signs or displays. This would make allowances for special
activities conducted by non -City persons or organizations that might take place in natural areas.
Private parties would otherwise be prohibited from leaving unattended signs or displays in natural
areas when they were not related to another permitted use. The Ordinance would amend the appeals
process for natural areas and parks permits to allow for an expedited appeal of a decision denying
a permit when the activity for which the permit was sought was protected by the First Amendment.
Teresa Ablao, Assistant City Attorney, stated Ordinance No. 211, 2006 would consolidate different
Code provisions that deal with the placement or posting of signs or handbills in the rights -of -way
and on City property. The Ordinance would address issues relating to illegally placed or posted
handbills or signs on private property as well as clarify the manner in which signs or other personal
property found on City property or rights -of -way were to be disposed of. Staffbelieved the proposed
changes would help address the issues caused by illegally placed election signs in the rights -of -way.
The Ordinance would apply to all signs, including commercial, ideological or political. The
proposed changes would include notice to the person or entity whose interests were advertised on
any signs found illegally in the right-of-way. Staff would be able to educate the person or entity
regarding the requirements of the Ordinance, provide the person or entity with an opportunity to
remove the signs, provide City staff with the tools to deal more expeditiously with the removal and
disposal of illegally placed signs, provide a 24-hour requirement for removal of signs (compared to
the current requirement of 10 days) and allow the City to issue citations to repeat violators and those
who fail to remove the signs after notice. The Ordinance would relocate the prohibition against signs
in the rights -of -way from Section 24-1 to Section 17-42. The Ordinance would also require
permission from owners for placement of handbills on motor vehicles or other personal property.
Mayor Hutchinson stated audience participants would each have five minutes to speak.
James Wetzler, 6645 Majestic Drive, realtor, requested clarification on the impact of the Ordinance
on tent or temporary signs providing directions for open houses.
Karen Rose, 5200 Parkway Circle East, stated this was a "heavy solution" and asked what problem
was being solved.
123
December 19, 2006
Mayor Hutchinson asked staff to address the question of open house signs. Lance Newlin, Chief
Construction Inspector, stated such signs were not allowed in the right-of-way or on private property
without the property owner's permission.
Mr. Wetzler asked for a definition of "right-of-way" and noted realtors typically liked to post open
house signs on a grassy area for visibility. Newlin stated the right-of-way was typically "back of
walk to back of walk." A parkway strip between the curb and the sidewalk was City right-of-way.
In general, if a sign was posted at least two feet behind the sidewalk it was okay.
Councilmember Kastein asked if garage sale signs would be allowed if these changes were made.
City Attorney Roy stated they were not allowed in the public right-of-way.
Councilmember Kastein asked when it was decided to bring these two Ordinances forward. City
Attorney Roy stated this related to the question Ms. Rose asked about what the City was "fixing."
The first Ordinance would clarify the City's policy with regard to unattended displays in the public
right-of-way and on other City property. There had been an "unwritten" policy of not allowing
unattended displays except for newsracks and the first Ordinance would codify that policy. This had
been an ongoing discussion among staff and the public for the last year. The second Ordinance
would clarify the City's authority to remove illegal signs and the City's obligation to give notice to
the people whose causes were promoted by the signs. The Code currently allowed those who posted
the illegal signs 10 days to get them after receiving notice. Concerns were raised by the Council and
by staff about the existing provision. It created a problem for staff to hang on to the signs for a
considerable period of time and created an opportunity for people to have signs in the right-of-way
because of the "grace period" to remove them. This was the problem that staff was attempting to
address. Staff noted there were two provisions in Code that addressed signs in the right-of-way i.e.,
Section 24-1 and Section 17-42. Section 17-42 related to handbills and included garage sale signs.
Those were prohibited under Section 17-42 but there was a provision about the City's authority to
pick them up and get rid of them. The two provisions were being consolidated and one remedy
would be applied to both situations. The proposal was to use Section 17-42 and the 24-hour notice
for removal or disposal by the City. The intent was to have the person who placed the signs or
handbills pick them up or be cited for failure to pick them up after notice.
Councilmember Kastein asked about the right way to display a real estate, garage sale or "lemonade"
sign. City Attorney Roy stated the signs must be placed on private property.
Councilmember Kastein asked if they could be placed on a corner in the neighborhood. City
Attorney Roy stated this was never permitted.
Councilmember Kastein stated there had been a discussion about garage sale signs and he thought
the intent was not to address that. Decker stated the main concern during that discussion was with
commercial signs. Staff did not want to attempt to make content -based distinctions between the
different types of signs. Section 17-42 as currently written applied to both commercial and
noncommercial signs whether placed on public or private property without the consent of the owner.
It currently applied to garage sale signs, missing pet signs, etc. Police Services was most concerned
about those that "paper every light pole downtown with flyers for a band." City Attorney Roy stated
124
December 19. 2006
there was a concern from Police Services about having to do all of the cleanup of the handbills. The
idea behind the amendment to Section 17-42 was to put the burden on the people being promoted
by the handbills.
Councilmember Kastein asked if this would prohibit unattended displays unless a permit was issued.
City Attorney Roy stated this was currently prohibited and this policy was "largely unwritten" and
the intent was to remove the "guesswork" on the part of staff.
Councilmember Kastein asked what other kinds of displays there could be besides newsracks. City
Attorney Roy stated there were all kinds of encroachments, including construction activity, and this
Ordinance was geared primarily toward the "speech -related" encroachments for which permits may
be issued i.e., signs, displays, things that communicate a message.
Councilmember Kastein asked if displays that conveyed a meaning or message could be displayed
at all. City Attorney Roy stated it was possible to carry a sign, hand out flyers or stand on a corner
and talk about it. It was and would be prohibited for people to prop up an unattended symbol, sign
or display in the public right-of-way for safety and aesthetic reasons.
Councilmember Kastein asked if such displays were allowed with a permit. City Attorney Roy
stated they were not allowed except for newsracks.
Councilmember Kastein asked if this applied to DDA property as well. City Attorney Roy replied
in the negative. Newlin stated DDA governed its own property.
Councilmember Kastein asked about the peace pole in Old Town Square and whether it was on DDA
property. He asked if the City would locate such unattended displays and remove them or if existing
displays were grandfathered. Newlin stated if such displays were in the City right-of-way, the City
would remove them.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the peace pole could be displayed if it belonged to the City. Newlin
replied in the affirmative, if it was on City property.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Ordinance
No. 210, 2006 on First Reading.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he was concerned about how people were at a competitive
disadvantage if they currently played by the rules on political signs because those who chose not to
play by the rules never suffered any "consequences." City Attorney Roy stated this point was
relevant to the Second Ordinance and the motion on the floor did not relate to the election signs
issue.
Mayor Hutchinson suggested that comments address the motion on the floor relating to the first
Ordinance.
125
December 19, 2006
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel,
Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmember Kastein.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Ordinance No.
211, 2006 on First Reading.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he would like thought to be given to changing this Ordinance on
Second Reading. It would be possible to "cheat' on campaign signs by posting hundreds of them
on the Saturday before election day along the road to the football game. The City would pickup the
signs on Tuesday (election day) and hundreds of illegal signs would be up and could remain up or
could replaced by others if there were no violations in the previous 10 days. Those who played by
the rules would be at a competitive disadvantage. The 24-hour notice provision did not address this
issue at all and was "fatally flawed." He suggested that there may be a need to hire a contractor to
remove illegal signs and there should not be 24 hours of notice to those posting illegal signs.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if this was sufficient direction to staff to revise the wording on Second
Reading. City Attorney Roy asked that if the Ordinance was adopted on First Reading, direction be
given to staff regarding whether or not to make the suggested change. There were trade-offs on this
issue. He asked if it was more important to the Council to be able to get rid of the signs as soon as
they appeared with no grace period or to be able to issue a criminal summons and complaint for
having violated the Code. The 24-hour notice provision was to enable the City to issue a summons
for failure to remove the signs after notice. A change could be made on Second Reading if it was
more important to have the signs removed immediately.
Councilmember Manvel noted the candidate may have nothing to do with a sign and could be cited
for failing to remove the sign within 24 hours. City Attorney Roy stated there would be no proof
about who posted such a sign and the 24 hours notice would give the candidate an opportunity to be
aware of the violation and remove the sign. This was a `reasonable exercise of the police power"
because the candidate would benefit from the posting of the illegal sign. Council needed to decide
if it was more important to remove and dispose of the signs rather than to be able to issue a citation.
Councilmember Roy stated he would be interested in seeing the language Councilmember Ohlson
was proposing on Second Reading.
Councilmember Manvel stated he did not see this as an "either/or" question. The 24-hour notice
could work in most situations and that authority could be given to take down signs immediately the
day before the election. City Attorney Roy stated he understood the intent would be to remove the
signs if time was of the essence or to give notice. Staff would discuss this and bring back a
recommendation on Second Reading. City Manager Atteberry stated this idea should be explored.
He noted staff had discussed some of these issues and asked Newlin to explain some of staff s
thinking about enforcement.
Newlin stated one of the issues of Council concern was political signs and not all of the signs in the
right-of-way were political. Many signs were posted by "people on the street' who did not know
126
December 19, 2006
what the law said and the 24-hour notice gave the construction inspectors an opportunity to educate
people about the law so they would not be repeat offenders. City Manager Atteberry stated there
were some election sign situations that created big problems for the City i.e., illegal game day
postings on the Saturday before the election. He suggested staffbe allowed to develop an option that
would allow discretion in removing signs when time was of the essence.
Councilmember Ohlson supported developing that option. This could be complicated for election
signs and would need some work. He suggested campaign signs may be different than other signs
because campaigns should know the law.
Councilmember Weitkunat asked if time was of the essence or if the matter could be postponed.
City Attorney Roy asked for time for staff to decide if time was of the essence. City Manager
Atteberry stated staff wanted to "get it right' and there was no time pressure to get this done
immediately.
Councilmember Ohlson stated he would like this to be considered in January because of the April
election.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to postpone First
Reading of Ordinance No. 211, 2006 to January 16, 2007. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown,
Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION TO POSTPONE CARRIED.
(Staff Note: Ordinance No. 211, 2006, was renumbered as Ordinance No. 018, 2007 for the January
16, 2007 meeting.)
Meeting Extended
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ohlson, to extend the meeting
past 10:30 p.m. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and
Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2006-132
Referring Ordinance No. 137, 2006, Annexing Property Known
as the Southwest Enclave Annexation, to a Vote of the Registered Electors
of the City at the Next Regular Municipal Election on April 3.2007, Adopted.
The following is staff s memorandum on this item
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Presentation of a Certified Petition Seeking to Repeal Ordinance No. 137, 2006, Annexing
Property Known as the Southwest Enclave Annexation to the City ofFort Collins, Colorado.
(No Action Needed)
127
December 19, 2006
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 212, 2006, Repealing Ordinance No. 137, 2006, Annexing
PropertyKnown as the Southwest Enclave Annexation to the City ofFort Collins, Colorado.
OR
Resolution 2006-132 Referring Ordinance No. 137, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the
Southwest Enclave Annexation, to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City at the Next
Regular Municipal Election on April 3, 2007.
On November 9, 2006, a referendum petition was filed with the City Clerk's Office seeking to repeal
Ordinance No. 137, 2006, Annexing Property Known as the Southwest Enclave Annexation to the
City ofFort Collins, Colorado. On November 16, the City Clerk determined that the petition did not
contain a sufficient number ofsignatures to require further action by the Council or placement of
the issue on an election ballot.
On November 20, Joann Malara, a petition representative, filed a written protest with the City Clerk,
setting forth the grounds of protest. A hearing was held on November 29, at which the Hearing
Officer (the City Clerk) reviewed the hearing agenda and guidelines, asked for clarification of the
protest notice, and received opening remarks from the protestor. The hearing was then continued
to December 6 to allow the parties to prepare their evidence. On December 6, evidence was
submitted that demonstrated the petition contained a sufficient number of valid signatures.
Upon presentation to the Council of a petition certified as sufficient for referendum, the operation
of the ordinance in question is automatically suspended pending repeal by Council or final
determination by the voters. If the ordinance is not repealed, the Council must refer the ordinance
to a vote of the registered electors at the next regular or special City election scheduled for any
other purpose. Alternatively, the Council may call a special election for this specific purpose. Staff
does not recommend calling a special election, since the next regular election is less than 4 months
away.
Ordinance No. 212, 2006, repealing Ordinance No. 137, 2006, has been presented for Council
consideration. If Council does not wish to repeal Ordinance No. 137, 2006, it should instead
consider Resolution 2006-132, which refers Ordinance No. 137, 2006 to the voters at the April 3,
2007 regular municipal election, and directs the City Manager and City Attorney to present for
Council's consideration no later than February 6, 2007, a resolution proposing the form of the
ballot language for the foregoing referred measure. "
City Clerk Krajicek presented background information on the agenda item and outlined the options
available to the Council in response to a referendum petition that had been determined to have
sufficient signatures to require that Council either repeal Ordinance No. 137, 2006 or place it on the
April municipal election ballot.
Mayor Hutchinson stated each audience participant would have four minutes to speak.
128
December 19, 2006
Karen Rose, 5200 Parkway Circle East, stated there was no requirement that the City or County
notify adjacent property owners their tax dollars would be or are being used to purchase public open
space adjacent to their private properties. There was no requirement that the City or County ask for
citizen or private property owner approval when the two governments agreed to an annexation of the
publically purchased open space. There was no requirement for the local governments to inform
adjacent property owners the government was going to "swap" government lands for annexed
highway right-of-way to enclose an enclave. Notifications were not provided to property and
business owners that they would have been put into an extended or changed growth management
area or under a new subarea plan. That was why people "get so upset." Intergovernmental
agreements between the City and County were not a "binding or unchangeable" contract. The
Southwest Annexation was "government for government" and not "government for the people by
the people."
Sandy Robbins, 5801 South Shields Street, compared the Northwest Subarea Plan with what had
happened on the Southwest Enclave Annexation. One difference was the northwest area was largely
served by City utilities. Statements had been made many times that the residents of the Southwest
Enclave Annexation were County residents enjoying City amenities without having to pay for them.
This was "blatantly untrue" and the residents had not asked for City amenities. The annexation
residents had chosen to be County residents and this choice was "being taken away." They would
have no representation on further taxation and there had been no vote of the people on this at all.
The issue was the right to vote and the right to have active representation. This was not a criticism
of the open space program as it was intended to be. She stated she did not believe that anyone who
voted for the open space tax ever thought it would be used to create an enclave. She asked why the
City was in the business to "enclave citizens" who chose not to live in the City. It was unlikely this
area would ever be surrounded by City amenities because of the open space areas. The City should
not be in the business of providing "trigger mechanisms" to annex people against their wishes.
Randy Whitman, 209 East Skyway Drive, asked about the undergrounding of overhead power lines
by the City. He was told at conceptual review he would have to pay for that. He did not understand
why he would be charged many fees. He could not expand his business because he was "stuck" in
the intergovernmental agreement. He could not run his business in this City and needed help on how
to do this.
Mark Schultheiss,5419 Paradise Lane, Southwest Enclave Annexation resident, questioned the
legality of the phased annexation. There was no provision in the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965
for doing a phased annexation. The statute should be conservatively interpreted because it imposed
a fourth procedure on citizens. The residents were being asked to accept something that was "not
in their best interest." If the Council proceeded with the phased annexation a "legal challenge"
should be expected.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated Council was not addressing the pros and cons of annexation at this
time. The issue was whether or not to refer the matter to the voters at the April 3rd election.
Councilmember Kastein asked if the City Attorney would like to address the issue of legality of the
phased annexation. City Attorney Roy stated the motion for reconsideration contained the City's
129
December 19, 2006
position with regard to each of the grounds upon which the motion for reconsideration was based.
The first allegation in the motion for reconsideration related to the phased approach to the
annexation. There was no specific provision in the annexation law that addressed the question of
phasing the annexation of an enclave and neither was it prohibited. There was case law relating to
an objection that part of a boundary was formed by tax exempt lands in which the court declined to
read into the law limitations that were not there. In staff s view, the annexation of an enclave could
occur all at once or over time since the annexation did not take effect under the statutes until the
recording with the County Clerk and Recorder of the annexation map.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the issue before the Council was the next step in the process. The Council
needed to decide whether to repeal the Ordinance or refer it to the April election ballot.
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt
Resolution 2006-132.
Councilmember Kastein stated he had considered repealing the Ordinance because of the possibility
of a couple of months of "more misinformation." The Council would have to make a concerted
effort to get the correct information out to the community. There were too many opportunities to
"use half truths" and steer the argument away from the real reason this was occurring. The "truth"
behind the forced annexation was efficiency of government. The City and the County had declared
that the best way for taxpayers to receive value for their dollars was for the County to deal with
County developments and the City to deal with City developments. The City had gone to great
lengths to create a rural zoning district that would work in the City boundaries for rural properties.
The bulk of the Council's effort in the next few months was to speak the "truth" so the taxpayers
would know why the City was pursuing this annexation.
Councilmember Roy stated he would support the motion. Ms. Rose's question about whether
landowners were informed on the Northwest Subarea Plan was answered at least twice. The City
had answered questions, hosted public meetings, and created exemptions to land use requirements
to accommodate existing uses. The Southwest Enclave was already "within the City limits" and it
would be up to the voters to decide whether it would be a part of the City. He wanted to make sure
that the City's position was clearly articulated.
Councilmember Manvel stated it was important for individual Councilmembers to inform the public
about the issues. The question was the shape of the City in 2030. The voters would have to decide
whether they wanted two of the main entrances to the City annexed (the Mulberry corridor and the
Southwest Enclave). It was not good government to have County property extending way into the
City. Such annexations will get more difficult and more expensive over time. It was time for the
Southwest Enclave Annexation to take place.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if help could be provided by the City to Mr. Whitman if it was
appropriate. City Manager Atteberry stated he and Planning staff had met with Mr. Whitman
numerous times and he would happy to meet with him again.
130
December 19, 2006
Councilmember Ohlson stated he would support the motion because it was time to have this
discussion about annexation and urban planning. He was "perplexed" that some of the opponents
of the annexation continued to attack the open lands program. Such attacks were "alienating" many
people. He stated for the record that he had opposed the annexation of those open lands as a member
of the Natural Resources Advisory Board and as a citizen in front of Council.
Councilmember Brown stated he would support the motion to grant a vote on the issue.
Mayor Hutchinson stated this would be a challenging and complex issue for the electorate. The
rationale was all about "community building." The Council listened carefully for six months and
adopted seven ordinances to address the problems that were brought to their attention. This was
truly a referendum on the City's IGA with the County and on the longstanding process that had built
the community. The IGA was the basis of a partnership that had built a fine quality community.
This vote would have consequences beyond the decision on the Southwest Enclave Annexation.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Ordinance No. 193, 2006,
Amending Section 15-327 of the City Code Pertaining to Secondhand
Dealers and Flea Market Vendor Requirements. Adopted on Second Reading.
The following is staff s memorandum on the item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 5, 2006, adds date of birth
to the information required from vendors renting a booth in a,Jlea market. "
City Manager Atteberry stated staff was available to answer any questions.
Karen Rose, 5200 Parkway Circle East, asked if the annexation was going to be suspended would
the ordinances that were created specifically for the annexation also be suspended. She asked
what would happen to those ordinances created for this annexation if the voters repealed the
annexation in April.
Mayor Hutchinson asked the City Attorney to respond to the question. City Attorney Roy stated
unless the Council decided to amend or repeal any of the other ordinances they were not affected by
the success or failure of the referendum effort.
Councilmember Manvel asked for confirmation that the ordinances would not apply in the Southwest
Enclave Annexation area until the annexation became effective. City Attorney Roy stated none of
the ordinances would apply to the enclave unless and until the voters approved the annexation. They
131
December 19, 2006
would remain in effect and would apply only in the City. City Manager Atteberry commented the
area would all go back under the jurisdiction of Latimer County as of 12:01 a.m. on December 20,
2006 and services that had been provided by the City since November 1 would now be provided by
the County.
Councilmember Manvel asked if that would change again as of the date of the election if the voters
upheld the annexation. City Attorney Roy stated the area would be under City jurisdiction as soon
as the election results were certified.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No.
193, 2006 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel,
Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Hutchinson encouraged people to ask questions about Consent Calendar items during Citizen
Participation.
Ordinance No. 202, 2006,
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 on the item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council met in Executive Session on November 14, 2006 to conduct the performance appraisal
of Municipal Judge Kathleen M. Lane. Ordinance No. 202, 2006, unanimously adopted on First
Reading on December 5, 2006, establishes the 2007 salary of the Municipal Judge at $82, 581. "
City Manager Atteberry stated staff was available to answer questions about the three salary
ordinances.
Karen Rose, 5200 Parkway Circle East, requested greater "transparency" in the salary and total
compensation calculations for the Municipal Judge, City Attorney and City Manager and stated more
information needed to be provided in the ordinances. She questioned the change to have the
Municipal Judge work only 80% of the time.
Mayor Hutchinson asked staff to address Ms. Rose's questions. City Attorney Roy stated the
agenda item summaries did not itemize total compensation benefits. The total compensation figure
was included in the last WHEREAS clause of each ordinance. The operative portion of each
ordinance amended the City Code and the Code provisions had never contained anything except the
salary figures.
132
December 19, 2006
Mayor Hutchinson stated the ordinances were to set the salaries for the three employees. The
Municipal Judge offered to serve as a .8 FTE to reduce her salary to assist with efforts to reduce City
costs to a range within the budget. City Manager Atteberry stated Judge Lane was very active in the
budgeting for outcomes process and every service area looked at areas to cut.
Councilmember Ohlson commented that he agreed with the "transparency" comments. He asked
if a comparative table for last year and this year could be included in the agenda item summaries in
the future. There were three different percentages of increase for the three employees for different
reasons and those reasons were talked about openly. City Manager Atteberry stated the comparative
table should be included in the Second Reading agenda item summaries but it would be difficult to
do that for First Reading because there was always a blank for compensation on First Reading.
Councilmember Kastein asked the City Manager to explain the difference in percentage increase for
salary and total compensation. City Manager Atteberry stated he would ask Human Resources to
prepare an explanation for the Council.
Mayor Hutchinson explained in detail the pay increases for the City Manager, Municipal Judge and
City Attorney and the willingness of all three to accept lower increases for the good of the City.
Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to adopt Ordinance
No. 202, 2006 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel,
Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 203, 2006,
Amending Section 2-581 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Attorney Adopted on Second Reading,
The following is staff s memorandum on the item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council met in Executive Session on November 14, 2006 to conduct the performance appraisal
of City Attorney Steve Roy. Ordinance No. 203, 2006, unanimously adopted on First Reading on
December 5, 2006, establishes the 2007 salary of the City Attorney at $144, 750. "
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt Ordinance
No. 203, 2006 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel,
Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
133
December 19, 2006
Ordinance No. 204, 2006,
Amending Section 2-596 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins and
Setting the Salary of the City Manager Adopted on Second Reading.
The following is staff s memorandum on the item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council met in Executive Session on November 14, 2006 to conduct the performance appraisal
of City Manager Darin Atteberry. Ordinance No. 204, 2006, establishes the salary of the City
Manager at $163, 404. "
Councilmember Brown made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt Ordinance
No. 204, 2006 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel,
Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 207, 2006,
Amending Section 2-575 of the City Code
Relating to Councilmember Compensation. Adopted on First Reading.
The following is staff s memorandum on the item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Article II, Section 3 of the City Charter provides that the compensation of Councilmembers shall be
adjusted annually for inflation in accordance with the Denver/Boulder Consumer Price Index. In
2006, Councilmembers were compensated $606per month, and the Mayor received $912 per month.
This Ordinance amends Section 2-575 of the City Code to set the 2007 compensation of
Councilmembers at $630 and the compensation of the Mayor at $945, as required by the City
Charter.
BACKGROUND
At the April 8, 1997 election, the electorate of the City offort Collins approved an amendment to
the City Charter setting the monthly compensation of Councilmembers and the Mayor at $500 and
$750, respectively. In addition, the Charter amendment added language requiring the amounts of
Council compensation to be adjusted annually for inflation in accordance with the Denver/Boulder
Consumer Price Index. The history of Council compensation since thefzrstadjustmentforinflation
was made is as follows:
134
December 19, 2006
Year
Mayor
Councilmember
1999
$770
$515
2000
$790
$525
2001
$825
$550
2002
$860
$575
2003
$880
$585
2004
$895
$595
2005
$895*
$595*
2006
$912
$606
* No adjustment was made for 2005
The 2007 compensation amounts, adjusted for inflation in accordance with the Denver/Boulder
Consumer Price Index are $630 per month for Councilmembers and $945per month for the Mayor. "
City Manager Atteberry stated the citizen who pulled this item from the Consent Calendar was no
longer present. This Ordinance would amend the Code to reflect what was required in the City
Charter relating to Council compensation. This would be a "nominal increase" for the Council and
Mayor.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the Charter mandate came from a vote of the people rather than the City
Council.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt Ordinance
No. 207, 2006 on First Reading.
Councilmember Ohlson stated most people were not aware of what the Council and the Mayor were
paid and that they received no benefits or retirement. He stated over the last nine years the Council
raises each year had been less than $13 (an average of 250 per week).
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Manvel stated the Council and the Board of County Commissioners recently
appointed a Committee charged with the responsibility for appointing an initial Board of Trustees
for the new Library District subject to ratification by the Council and the County Commissioners.
Once the Board of Trustees was appointed the District would presumablyhave separate legal counsel
to advise them but until then the City and County staff may need some advice regarding their duties
since the City and County Attorneys normally did not advise anyone but their respective clients. One
of them needed to be identified to provide legal advice to the committee. Everyone agreed to have
the City Attorney or a member of his staff perform this function.
135
December 19, 2006
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to direct that the
City Attorney provide legal services needed for the City or County staff and the library district
committee as they worked through the process of appointing the initial members of the Library
District Board of Trustees, with the understanding that the provision of these services would then
be considered within the scope of the City Attorney's employment for the City and within the
performance of his duties for the City.
Councilmember Roy asked how long these extra duties would continue. City Attorney Roy stated
the statute provided that the committee would go out of existence and would complete its function
once it appointed the members of the initial Board of Trustees or that it could remain in existence
for the purpose of appointing future members. That would be a decision point for the Council to
revisit the issue. He would envision that this service would be needed for a matter of weeks or
months.
Councilmember Manvel stated the Library Board of Trustees would need to appoint an attorney and
asked how they would function before that was done. City Attorney Roy stated that would need to
be an early order of business. His recommendation would be that the Board retain the services of
another attorney as soon as the Board was established. The Board would then seek temporary
reimbursement for this cost through an IGA until the tax revenues started to come in.
Councilmember Manvel stated applications were now being accepted for the Library District Board
of Trustees.
Councilmember Weitkunat stated there was a tentative timetable for the process and the City
Attorney would only be advising the selection committee.
Councilmember Roy asked how many hours the City Attorney would spend on this during the
months he would be providing these legal services.
Councilmember Manvel stated he did not anticipate this would require many hours. City Attorney
Roy stated his office could manage the hours that would be spent on this. There were issues to deal
with regarding how the committee would go about its assigned task and he did not envision this as
requiring many hours.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein,
Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Brown, to cancel the
regular meeting of January 2, 2007. Yeas: Councilmembers Brown, Hutchinson, Kastein, Manvel,
Ohlson, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
136
December 19, 2006
The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
4Mayv
ATTEST:
137