HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-12/02/2008-RegularDecember 2, 2008
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, December 2,
2008, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy, and
Troxell.
(Councilmember Brown excused from Council meetings from October 28, 2008 through April 7,
2009, authorized by Resolution 2008-104.)
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Eric Sutherland, 631 LaPorte Avenue, stated his opposition to the City's 2009 Legislative Policy
Agenda because it contains the City's intent to oppose carbon regulation or a carbon tax.
Ann Wilseck, 3200 Azalea Drive, supported Package A of the Colorado Department of
Transportation Draft Environmental Statement for North I-25. Package A contains a commuter rail
component that would use existing rail lines along the 287 corridor.
Fred Kirsch, 509 South Bryan, spoke in favor of utilizing trash districts throughout the city to lessen
air pollution, road damage and large truck traffic and noise.
Blaine Gallup, Fort Collins resident, reminded Council and the public that fund raising continues
for the Veterans' Plaza.
Liz Pruesssner, 712 Ponderosa Drive, stated trash districting is needed to implement several
strategies listed in the proposed Climate Plan. Achieving the goal of 50% diversion of solid waste
cannot be reached under the current trash hauling system and trash districting will be the most
effective way to meet the goal.
Gail Marie Kimmel, Fort Collins resident, co -director of Local Living Economy, thanked the City
of its support of the local businesses and she urged the public to use the `Be Local" coupon book to
shop locally.
Cheryl Distaso,13 5 South Sunset, stated people using wheelchairs are only allowed to use bike lanes
when a sidewalk is deemed unsuitable. She asked Council to reconsider allowing wheelchair use
in bike lanes.
251
December 2, 2008
Kelly Clifton, 910 West Oak, stated the Fort Collins Utilities is participating in the solar voltaic
portion of the Energy Program from the Governor's Energy Office but it is not participating the solar
thermal portion of the Energy Program. Solar thermal is a proven technology that collects more
energy than solar voltaic. He asked the City apply for the solar thermal portion of the Energy
Program.
Mike Devereaux, 2150 Maid Marian Court, stated his desire to be able to legally ride his power chair
in bike lanes because sidewalks are sometimes in disrepair, non-existent or are too rough. Bike lanes
are much smoother and make riding his wheelchair much easier.
Sarah Allman, 1200 East Stuart, shared her concerns with bus scheduling that makes it difficult for
riders to get around the city.
Joan Welsh, 316 Del Clair Road, supported trash districting as it will improve the city.
Katy Friedenfall, Director of Community Affairs, ASCSU, stated Council is currently scheduled to
to consider some amendments to the over -occupancy ordinance on January 20, 2009 and she
requested this item be moved to a later date to accommodate students who would like to participate.
Mary Smith, 1618 Sagewood Drive, supported trash districting because districting will reduce truck
traffic, street damage, fuel waste and greenhouse gases.
Leslie McCutchen, 3821 Rock Creek Drive, asked Council to postpone its consideration of
amendments to the over -occupancy ordinance to a later date from January 20, 2009 to give students
an opportunity to attend.
Ellen Lawson, 519 East Plum, supported trash districting.
Yvonne Longacre, 1550 Blue Spruce, requested Council consider allowing wheelchairs to travel in
bike lanes to give the same rights to physically challenged people as to those who are not.
Dan Palmer, Fort Collins resident, supported trash districting and asked for consideration of the
amendments to the over -occupancy ordinance at a later date.
Naomi Hoyer, 611 LaPorte, stated the current trash system is inefficient and she supported trash
districting.
Lindsay McKee, CSU student, asked Council to postpone its consideration of amendments to the
over -occupancy ordinance to a later date from January 20, 2009 to give students an opportunity to
attend.
Nick Hoyer, 611 LaPorte, supported trash districting to eliminate the number of trucks that go
through his neighborhood.
252
December 2, 2008
Terry Schlicting, 1400 West Elizabeth, stated cracks make it difficult to navigate the sidewalks in
his wheelchair and he requested that Council consider allowing wheelchairs to be used in the bike
lanes.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Ohlson asked that consideration of the over -occupancy ordinance amendments be
from January 20 to February 3, 2009. He requested a report and recommendation from staff
regarding the use of wheelchairs in bike lanes.
Councilmember Manvel stated the North I-25 draft EIS offers one alternative that focuses on rail
going through the cities and another alternative that focuses on bus rapid -transit along the interstate.
Council will discuss the draft EIS at its December 16 meeting.
Councilmember Poppaw encouraged citizens to use the "Buy Local" coupon book. She asked staff
to consult with citizens who are in wheelchairs to get their perspective on safety issues and riding
in the bike lanes.
Councilmember Troxell supported moving consideration of the over -occupancy ordinance
amendments to February 3 to allow for CSU student participation.
Councilmember Roy stated safety is the first concern and allowing wheelchairs in bike lanes should
be allowed only if they are not endangered by riding in bike lanes. He asked for staff to determine
if participating in the solar thermal portion of the Governor's Solar Program is possible.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated Item # 10Items Pertaining to the Annexation and Zoning of the Eagle
View Natural Area and Item #24 Hearing and Resolution 2008-118 Approving the Programs and
Projects that Will Receive Fundsfrom the Federal Home Investment Partnership (HOME) Program
Grant and the City's Affordable Housing Fund are public hearings that citizens may remove from
the Consent Calendar if they wish to make comments. He recommended switching the agenda order
of Item #34 Consideration of the Appeal by Randy Whitman of the July 17, 2008 Determination of
the Planning and Zoning Board to Deny the Whitman Storage Facility —Request for a Modification
of Standard Set Forth in Section 3.8.11(C)(1) of the Land Use Code and #35 Consideration of the
Appeal by Randy Whitman of the October 16, 2008 Determination of the Planning and Zoning Board
to Deny the Whitman Storage Facility — Addition of Permitted Use to consider the Appeal of the
Addition of Permitted Use first.
City Manager Atteberry stated the Legislative Review Committee recommends removing Item #26
Resolution 2008-120Adopting the City's 2009 Legislative Policy Agenda from the Agenda and will
bring it back at a later date.
253
December 2, 2008
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the September 16 October 7 October 21 and
November 18 Reeular Meetinps, the October 14 and November 12, 2008 Special Meetings
and the October 14 and October 28, 2008 Adjourned Meetinps.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2008, Appropriating Funds for the Harmon
Ziegler Roads Improvements Project.
The Harmony Road and Ziegler Road improvements for the Front Range Village
Development Project are now complete, with the final pavement overlay completed this
spring on Harmony Road and completion of the roundabout at Horsetooth and Ziegler. The
financial closeout ofthe Project is underway. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First
Reading on October 21, 2008, reconciles the various funds that contributed to the Project and
appropriates additional amounts to cover unanticipated expenses in the Project.
8. Second Readinp of Ordinance No. 136, 2008, Designatine the Loomis -Jones House, 401
Smith Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
Ordinance No. 136, 2008, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 21, 2008,
designates the Loomis -Jones House, 401 Smith Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark. The
owners of the property, Ralph and Patricia Tvede, are initiating this request.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2008, Desi ng ating the Ricketts Farm, 2300 West
Mulberry, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 21, 2008, designates the
Ricketts Farm, 2300 West Mulberry, as a Fort Collins Landmark. The owners of the
property, Richard and Teresa Ricketts, are initiating this request.
10. Items Pertaining to the Annexation and Zoning of the Eagle View Natural Area.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2008, Annexing Property Known as the
Eagle View Natural Area First Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
B. Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 139,2008 Amending the Zoning Map
of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included
in the Eagle View Natural Area First Annexation to the City of Fort Collins,
Colorado.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2008, Annexing Property Known as the
Eagle View Natural Area Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
254
December 2, 2008
D. Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2008, Amending the Zoning
Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property
Included in the Eagle View Natural Area Second Annexation to the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado.
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 12, 2008, annex and
zone approximately 86 acres of land solely owned by the City, known as the Eagle View
Natural Area and place the area into the POL — Public Open Lands Zone District. The
annexations are in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate
to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, the Larimer County and City
of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreement, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, and
the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2008, Amending Ordinance No. 067, 2005, to
Clarify the Portion ofHarmonvRoad that is Owned. Controlled and Maintained by the City.
In 2005, the City and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) executed a series
of documents, including an intergovernmental agreement (the "IGA"), that transferred
ownership, administrative control, and maintenance of Harmony Road to Fort Collins. The
City and CDOT staff are recommending an amendment to the IGA to clarify the
jurisdictional limits of the two entities. In addition, the City has agreed with CDOT to
assume operation and maintenance responsibility for the traffic signal at the intersection of
Harmony Road and the Harmony Transit Center. This is easier and more efficient for Fort
Collins than for CDOT, and can be assumed under existing budgets. This Ordinance,
unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 12, 2008, amends Ordinance No. 067,
2005, to reflect the change in maintenance responsibilities and clarify the point at which the
City's jurisdiction ends and CDOT's begins.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 2008, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the Recreation Fund for General Operating Support ofthe Adaptive Recreation Opportunities
Passport Project Program.
The City was awarded an $88,811 grant from the Department of Education via a sub -award
from Colorado State University. This Ordinance appropriates that grant money in the
Passport Project.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2008. Authorizingthe he Appropriation of 2009 Fiscal
Year Operating and Capital improvement Funds for the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal
Airport.
The 2009 annual operating budget for the Airport totals $722,700, and will be funded from
Airport operating revenues, contributions from the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland
($85,000 from each city), and interest earnings. This Ordinance appropriates the City of Fort
Collins' contribution, which is a 50% share of the 2009 Airport budget and totals $361,350.
255
December 2, 2008
This Ordinance also appropriates the City of Fort Collins' 50% share of capital funds,
totaling $791,115 for the Airport from federal and state grants; passenger charges;
contributions from Fort Collins and Loveland; and the Airport General Fund. The 2009
Airport capital funds, totaling $1,582,230, will be used to pave the Echo taxiway, rehabilitate
portions of the aircraft taxiways in the hangar area and construct the security fencing and
gates. In addition, the airport will purchase training supplies for the aircraft rescue and fire
fighting services; and purchase airfield maintenance equipment.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2008, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
From the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Office of Community Oriented
Policing Methamphhetamine Initiative in the General Fund for the Larimer County Drug Task
Force.
The City has received two grants for the Larimer County Drug Task Force. The first is from
the Office of National Drug Control Policy for January 1-December 31, 2009 in the amount
of $105,000. The second is from the Office of Community Oriented Policing
Methamphetamine Initiative in the amount of $133,280.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 146, 2008. Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the General Fund and Authorizing the Transfer ofAppronnated Amounts Between Accounts
and Projects for Police Services.
Police Services received federal funding to apply to the purchase an armored rescue vehicle
for the use of the Police Services SWAT Team. Additionally, $48,000 in seized assets from
the Larimer County Drug Task Force was applied to the purchase. The total cost of the
vehicle was $203,529. The purchase was made in February 2008, and the vehicle is currently
in use. After the initial grant award notifications were received, an additional $30,302 was
awarded from the 2005 State Homeland Security Program. This Ordinance appropriates the
unanticipated $30,302 for this purchase. The total amount of federal funding received for
this purchase is now $107,945.
16. Items Relating to the Issuance of City of Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority
Taxable Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2008A.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 147, 2008, Authorizing the Issuance of City of Fort
Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority Taxable Subordinate Tax
Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2008A, Dated Their Delivery Date, in the
Aggregate Principal Amount of $10,488,043, for the Purpose of Financing Certain
Capital Improvements, Capital Projects and Development Projects Within the
Downtown Development Authority Area; Providing for the Pledge of Certain
Incremental Ad Valorem Tax Revenues to Pay the Principal of and Interest on the
Bonds; Approving Documents in Connection Therewith; and Ratifying Action
Previously Taken and Appertaining Thereto.
256
December 2, 2008
B. First Reading of Ordinance No.148, 2008, Appropriating Proceeds from the Issuance
of City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority Taxable
Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2008A, for the Purpose of
Making Certain Capital Improvements, Capital Projects and Development Projects
Within the Downtown Area of Fort Collins, Authorizing the Transfer of
Appropriations Between Funds and Appropriating Expenditures from the DDA Debt
Service Fund to Make the 2008 Payment on the Bonds.
The Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors (the "Board") has adopted
Resolution 2008-11 which recommended to the Council the issuance of $10,488,043 Tax
Increment Bonds and the appropriation of the proceeds of the issuance to be used for the
projects and programs identified.
The City of Fort Collins created the DDA to make desired improvements in the downtown
area. Through tax increment financing, the DDA has made significant contributions to the
redevelopment and improvement of the downtown area. These two Ordinances contemplate
additional improvements and initiate a green building TIF fagade/grant program and the 2009
funding for Beet Street.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2008, Amending Section 2-575 of the City Code
Relating to Councilmember Compensation.
Article II, Section 3 of the City Charter directs that the compensation of Councilmembers
shall be adjusted annually for inflation in accordance with the Denver/Boulder Consumer
Price Index. In 2008, Councilmembers were compensated $650 per month, and the Mayor
received $970 per month.
This Ordinance amends Section 2-575 of the City Code to set the 2009 compensation of
Councilmembers at $675 per month and the compensation of the Mayor at $1,005 permonth,
as required by the City Charter.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2008, Authorizing a Revocable Permit to the Fort
Collins Fire Museum Foundation for Access to City -Owned Property at 330 North Howes
Street for up to Five Years.
The property at 330 North Howes Street (the "Car Bam") currently houses Poudre Fire
Authority ("PFA") and City Museum antique fire fighting equipment. The Fort Collins Fire
Museum Foundation, a non-profit organization created by former Fire Chief Ed Yonker for
the purpose of restoring City and PFA historical fire equipment, desires continued access to
the restoration equipment stored in the Car Barn.
19. Items Relating to the Gateway First. Second and Third Annexations.
A. Resolution 2008-111 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding
the Gateway First Annexation.
257
December 2, 2008
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2008, Annexing Property Known as the
Gateway First Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2008, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of
Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Gateway First Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
D. Resolution 2008-112 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding
the Gateway Second Annexation.
E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2008, Annexing Property Known as the
Gateway Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
First Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2008, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of
Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Gateway Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
G. Resolution 2008-113 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding
the Gateway Third Annexation.
H. First Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2008, Annexing Property Known as the
Gateway Third Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
I. First Reading of Ordinance No. 156, 2008, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of
Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Gateway Third Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
The proposed Resolutions make findings that the voluntary petition for annexation for the
Gateway Annexation, containing a total of approximately 256.3 acres, substantially complies
with the Municipal Annexation Act, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan (City
Plan), the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements, the City
of Fort Collins Land Use Code, and the Harmony Corridor Plan. The Ordinances annex the
property into the City limits and place the property into the POL-Public Open Lands Zoning
District.
20. Resolution 2008-I 14 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings
for the Eagle View Third Annexation.
The proposed Resolution makes findings that the voluntary petition forthe Eagle View Third
Annexation substantially complies with the Municipal Annexation Act, determines that a
hearing should be established regarding the annexation, and directs that notices be given of
the hearing. The hearing will be held at the time of second readings of the annexation and
zoning ordinances, scheduled for January 6, 2009. Not less than thirty days of prior notice
is required by State law. The annexation request is in conformance with the State of
Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins
258
December 2, 2008
Comprehensive Plan (City Plan), the Latimer County and City of Fort Collins
Intergovernmental Agreements, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, and the Harmony
Corridor Plan and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan.
21. Resolution 2008-115 Authorizing the Lease of a Portion of City -owned Property at 300
North Howes Street to Friends of the Fort Collins Bike Program, Inc.. for up to Two Years
as Part of the Recycled Bike Proiect.
On December 18, 2007, City Council approved leasing 222 LaPorte Avenue to the Friends
of the Fort Collins Bike Program, Inc. ("FFCBP"). This site is the former home of the
Poudre Valley Creamery ("PVC"). The leased premises for the FFCBP include a garage at
the west end of the site, the stand-alone building at the south of the parking lot and an area
at the northeastern comer of the facility. The area at the northeastern corner of the building
has been used by FFCBP for bike storage only. They have been utilizing the garage and the
stand-alone building for the bike repair work.
Due to structural deterioration in the northeast portion of the building, the City has been
advised not to allow use in this area. As a result, staff has worked with the City's Bicycle
Coordinator and the FFCBP to identify another area that could be used as bicycle storage.
One block to the north is a City building, located at 300 North Howes, that is currently being
used as storage but has room available for bikes. Since the building is only one block from
the current site, this building became the optimum choice. The property at 300 North Howes
is part of the Option Agreement with Penny Flats for its residential/commercial plans for this
block. Staff has talked with Penny Flats about the possibility of leasing a portion of this site
until it is ready to move forward with the option that contains the property at 300 North
Howes Street. Penny Flats has agreed to allow the City to lease the property.
Staff requests that Council approve a lease for the eastern bay, containing 1,306 square feet,
of the building at 300 North Howes Street for the FFCBP. FFCBP will continue its use of
the remainder of the leased premises at the PVC site.
22. Resolution 2008-1 l 6 Authorizing a Two -Year Extension of the Grazing Lease with Folsom
Grazing Association on Soapstone Prairie Natural Area.
Soapstone Prairie Natural Area is currently leased to the Folsom Grazing Association for
livestock grazing; the existing lease will expire in December 2008. The lease extension will
continue grazing on the property through 2010 with modifications to the current lease. The
lease modifications were made in order to manage for the conservation targets identified in
the Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Management Plan (adopted September 2007).
Modifications include essentially limiting grazing to the eastern portion of the property,
combining all cattle into a single herd, and reducing the allowed number of animal unit
months (AUMs) from 3,600 to 2,500 (2,500 AUMs is approximately equivalent to 500 cows
with calves grazing over a 5-month period). Grazing management will utilize high intensity,
short duration grazing to more closely mimic historic grazing patterns of native ungulates
(e.g., elk, deer, pronghorn antelope and bison).
259
December 2, 2008
23. Resolution 2008-117 Approving the Exemption to the Use of a Competitive Process for the
Purchase of a 15KV Electrical Switchgear Power Control Center.
Fort Collins Utilities will be purchasing one new 15KV electrical power control center for
installation at the new Portner Substation, located on Trilby, between South College and
South Lemay Avenue. The Portner Substation will supply power to southeast Fort Collins
and allow for load transfer from the Harmony Substation. It is scheduled to be energized Fall
2009. The switchgear will be purchased directly from the manufacturer, Powell Electrical
Manufacturing Company for a total price of $2,129,015.
24. Hearing and Resolution 2008-118 Approving the Programs and Projects that Will Receive
Funds from the Federal Home Investment Partnership (HOME) Program Grant and the City's
Affordable Housing Fund.
The Resolution will complete the fall cycle of the competitive process for allocating City
financial resources to affordable housing programs/projects.
25. Resolution 2008-119 Adopting a Revenue Allocation Formula to Define the City of Fort
Collins' Contribution to the Poudre Fire Authority Budget for the Year 2009 for Operations
and Maintenance.
This Resolution establishes a Revenue Allocation Formula between the City of Fort Collins
and the Poudre Fire Authority to contribute funding for maintenance and operating costs of
Poudre Fire Authority.
26. Resolution 2008-120 Adoptin the he City's 2009 Legislative Policy Agenda.
Each year the Legislative Review Committee (LRC) develops a legislative agenda to assist
in the analysis of pending legislation. The Legislative Policy Agenda is used as a guide by
Council members and staff to determine positions on pending legislation and as a general
reference for state legislators and congressional delegation.
27. Resolution 2008-121 Adopting an Updated Policy Concerning the City's Investments.
The 2008 Updated Investment Policy includes the following significant changes:
Allow for Interfund Borrowings by entities that cannot access the market at viable
levels to sustain their existence. Cap this type of activity at no more than 25% of the
overall governmental share of the portfolio. Based on current investment holdings,
this would limit the amount available in the program to $47.5 million. The utilities
investment portfolio would not be available for this program unless a recognized
nexus existed.
2. Extend the average duration of the overall portfolio from a current limit of 2 years
up to 3 years. This change would allow the City the flexibility to take advantage of
260
December 2, 2008
a steepening yield curve while still maintaining it focus on the short-term liquidity
needs of the organization.
3. Add Certificate of Deposits Account Registry (CDARs) to the list of eligible
investments. In the past, the City has not utilized certificates of deposit as it was too
cumbersome due to the $I00,000 FDIC limit per account per entity. CDARs is an
investment vehicle created during the past year that networks certificates of deposits
at several banks and as a result provides up to $50 million of Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC) coverage to a single accountholder. This will allow
the City to have the safety of FDIC backing and the ability to invest millions with a
single bank based on a competitive bid versus only $100,000 in the past at whatever
rate the bank was offering.
28. Routine Easement.
A. Quit claim deed from Everitt Enterprises, Inc., for a stormwater detention pond
dedication, located at South Timberline Road in Timberline Village P.U.D.
Monetary consideration: $0.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2008, Appropriating Funds for the Harmony and
Ziegler Roads Improvements Project.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 2008, Designating the Loomis -Jones House, 401
Smith Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2008, Designating the Ricketts Farm, 2300 West
Mulberry, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
10. Items Pertaining to the Annexation and Zoning of the Eagle View Natural Area.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2008, Annexing Property Known as the
Eagle View Natural Area First Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
B. Hearing and Second Reading of OrdinanceNo. 139,2008 Amending the Zoning Map
ofthe City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included
in the Eagle View Natural Area First Annexation to the City of Fort Collins,
Colorado.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2008, Annexing Property Known as the
Eagle View Natural Area Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
261
December Z 2008
D. Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2008, Amending the Zoning
Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property
Included in the Eagle View Natural Area Second Annexation to the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2008, Amending Ordinance No. 067, 2005, to
Clarify the Portion of Harmony Road that is Owned, Controlled and Maintained by the City.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
12, First Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 2008, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the Recreation Fund for General Operating Support ofthe Adaptive Recreation Opportunities
Passport Project Program.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2008, Authorizing the Appropriation of 2009 Fiscal
Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal
Airport.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2008, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
From the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Office of Community Oriented
Policing Methamphetamine Initiative in the General Fund for the Larimer County Drug Task
Force.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 146, 2008, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the General Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between Accounts
and Projects for Police Services.
16. Items Relating to the Issuance of City of Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority
Taxable Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2008A.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 147, 2008, Authorizing the Issuance of City of Fort
Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority Taxable Subordinate Tax
Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2008A, Dated Their Delivery Date, in the
Aggregate Principal Amount of $10,488,043, for the Purpose of Financing Certain
Capital Improvements, Capital Projects and Development Projects Within the
Downtown Development Authority Area; Providing for the Pledge of Certain
Incremental Ad Valorem Tax Revenues to Pay the Principal of and Interest on the
Bonds; Approving Documents in Connection Therewith; and Ratifying Action
Previously Taken and Appertaining Thereto.
B. First Reading ofOrdinanceNo. 148, 2008, Appropriating Proceeds from the Issuance
of City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority Taxable
Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2008A, for the Purpose of
Making Certain Capital Improvements, Capital Projects and Development Projects
Within the Downtown Area of Fort Collins, Authorizing the Transfer of
262
December 2, 2008
Appropriations Between Funds and Appropriating Expenditures from the DDA Debt
Service Fund to Make the 2008 Payment on the Bonds.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2008, Amending Section 2-575 of the City Code
Relating to Councilmember Compensation.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2008, Authorizing a Revocable Permit to the Fort
Collins Fire Museum Foundation for Access to City -Owned Property at 330 North Howes
Street for up to Five Years.
19. Items Relating to the Gateway First, Second and Third Annexations.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2008, Annexing Property Known as the
Gateway First Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2008, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of
Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Gateway First Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2008, Annexing Property Known as the
Gateway Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2008, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of
Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Gateway Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
H. First Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2008, Annexing Property Known as the
Gateway Third Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
1. First Reading of Ordinance No. 156, 2008, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of
Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Gateway Third Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
36. First Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 2008, Amending Section 2-606 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the Municipal Judge.
37. First Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 2008, Amending Section 2-581 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Attorney.
38. First Reading of Ordinance 159, 2008, Amending Section 2-596 ofthe City Code and Setting
the Salary of the City Manager.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt and approve
all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw,
Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
263
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consent Calendar Follow-up
December 2, 2008
Councilmember Ohlson stated Item #16 authorizes issuance of Downtown Development Authority
bonds for projects such as a year-round community market, improving alleys in the downtown area,
purchase of the Elks Building and continuing the Beet Street Program. Item #21 allows the Friends
of Fort Collins Bike Program to use a downtown City building for its program. He asked if heated
space has been found for the volunteers who repair the bicycles for the Fort Collins Bike Library.
City Atteberry stated the request has been received but no heated space has been located yet.
Councilmember Ohlson noted Item #22 authorizing a grazing lease at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area
that improves grazing practices. The City is considering the addition of a bison herd to the
Soapstone Prairie at some point in the future. John Stokes, Natural Resources Director, stated
putting a bison herd on the Soapstone property is a very complicated issue and is being examined
by staff.
Staff Reports
City Manager Atteberry stated Sprig Toys, a local company, was highlighted on Channel 9 News and
is committed to making eco-friendly toys that are creative and employ smart design. It is part of the
Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative, a business incubation program supported by the City.
Christina Vincent, City Planner, reported the tenants in the nine dwelling units on Grape Street are
now allowed to access the $2000 allotted for relocation expenses without the original categories of
limitations. The seven tenants on the Barber property have until February I to utilize the relocation
program and the two tenants on the Jones property have a longer period of time since they have not
yet been given notice to relocate. Six of the seven tenants have moved from the Barber property and
the one remaining tenant will be removed by the sheriff as ordered by the court. Four of the seven
tenants have utilized the relocation funds to its fullest extent. The North College Business
Association donated hats, boots and gloves to the six children who lived on Grape Street. The
developer has purchased $200 grocery store gift cards to assist the families during the relocation
process.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Poppaw attended an event recognizing World AIDS Day at the Museum of
Contemporary Art.
264
December 2, 2008
Resolution 2008-122
Adopting the 2008 Fort Collins Climate Action Plan, Adopted Option B
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
Adopting the Resolution incurs no financial impact. However, the Resolution directs the City
Manager to considergreenhouse gas reducing activities in budget and staffworkplan development.
Council must take additional actions to implement many of the items in the Plan. Council can
determine the timing and magnitude of the financial impacts (costs and savings) in the overall
context of evolving City budget and policy priorities, and developing carbon markets. Many of the
strategies identified in the Plan will come before Council to fulfill other City goals and objectives
but are included in the Plan because of their important role in greenhouse gas reduction.
Comprehensive cost/benefit analyses will be developed for individual strategies using up-to-date
information as Council considers the individual strategies.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In May 2008, City Council adopted Resolution 2008-051, setting new goals to reduce Fort Collins
greenhouse gas emissions 20% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, both when compared to 2005 emissions
levels, and states the "intent " to reduce community -wide greenhouse gas emissions by the end of
2012 to a level not to exceed 2,466, 000 tons CO2e. A Climate Action Plan has been developed that
identified actions that will help the community meet these reduction objectives. The Plan is based
largely on the recommendations of the Fort Collins Climate Task Force who worked for over a year
to seek public input, evaluate and filtered ideas, and consider cost-effectiveness. The Plan is based
on existing successes, focuses on actions within local control, engages all sectors of the community
and addresses all emission sources. Actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions result in multiple
other benefits.for the community and support other priority policy objectives for the City of Fort
Collins. The Resolution would accept the proposed Plan as a blueprint for achieving the 2020
reduction goal, without committing budget resources to any specific action at this time.
Two versions of the Resolution are presented: Option A approves the Plan as presented at the
October City Council work session with the incorporation of additional measures as described in
an Addendum prepared by staff in response to the work session discussion, Option B approves the
Plan as presented at the October work session, without the additional measures prepared by staff
in response to the work session discussion.
BACKGROUND
By adopting the Resolution, Council would:
Acknowledge the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
265
December 2, 2008
• Accept the Plan as a blueprint for achieving the 2020 reduction goal, without committing
budget resources to any specific action at this time.
• Grant the City Manager flexibility to select specific actions from the Plan, to be advanced
in budget recommendations and staff work plans.
• Require the City Manager to prepare an annual emissions inventory and progress report.
• Require the City Manager to prepare a biennial progress report, in advance of City budget
preparation, evaluating progress and recommending future climate protection actions.
• Require the City Manager to examine evolving best practices and cost-effective strategies
to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals for inclusion in the biennial progress reports.
L Fort Collins Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals
Resolution 2008-051 adopted by City Council in May 2008 establishes two greenhouse gas goals
for the Fort Collins community and one near -term "intent" to reduce emissions. The two goals are
identical to statewide goals set for Colorado.
Goals
Reduce community -wide greenhouse gas emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020
Reduce community -wide greenhouse gas emissions 80% below 2005 levels by 2050.
2012 Intent
Reduce community -wide greenhouse gas emissions by the end of 2012 to a level not to
exceed 2,466,000 tons CO2e.
The Fort Collins community could realize significant ancillary economic, environmental and social
benefits by undertaking responsible steps to combat climate change, including:
• Support local businesses and stimulate economic development.
• Provide economic stimulation of research and development activities.
• Reduce home and business energy costs for heating, cooling and lighting.
• Reduce home and business motor vehicle fuel costs.
• Reduce dependence on foreign fuel sources.
• Reduce vulnerability to energy price increases and volatility.
• Reduce peak energy demand and improve utilization of the electricity system.
• Diversify energy supply and reduce loads on transmission system.
• Reduce air pollution emissions including ozone precursors and fine particles.
• Improve public health.
• Improve local visibility.
• Reduce waste and increase landfill diversion rates.
• Reduce vehicle miles of travel and road congestion.
• Reduce water consumption in the community.
• Increase Fort Collins' ability to adapt to a changing climate.
• Provide opportunities for regional, state and national leadership and recognition.
266
December 2, 2008
There are numerous reasons to take action to reduce emissions. The cost of inaction may exceed
the cost of taking action by an order of magnitude. Sir Nicholas Stern, head of the UK Government
Economic Service and former Chief Economist of the World Bank, stated in October 2006:
There is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, if we take action now... If
we don't act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at
least 5% of global GDP per year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts
is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more.... In
contrast, the cost ofaction -- reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts
of climate change — can be limited to around 1 % of GDP per year.
An increasing number ofstudies show that, in addition to being less costly overall, taking action to
avert global warming can be immediately profitable. Urban regions can thrive while also reducing
greenhouse gases, as demonstrated by Portland/Multnomah County. While net greenhouse gas
emissions in Multnomah County are about at 1990 levels, and per capita CO. emissions have
dropped over 12%, the inflation -adjusted payroll has increased 29%and employment has increased
about 12%. To demonstrate local benefits we need look no further than Fort Collins' own Climate
Wise Program. In 2007 Climate Wise reported a cumulative cost savings of over $12 million from
projects completed by partners through 2007, the some year the partners collectively reduced over
82,000 tons COZe.
Local governments have strong financial incentives to address climate change. Reducing local
carbon emissions means pursuing a variety ofprograms and practices that are energy prudent, and
thus ultimately fiscally responsible.
77. Development of the 2008 Fort Collins Climate Action Plan
In 1999, Fort Collins was among the first communities in the nation to adopt a community -wide
greenhouse gas reduction goal and a plan to meet it. Good progress has been made over the past
several years but Fort Collins was not on track to meet the 2010 goal. In 2007, the Fort Collins
Climate Task Force was convened to develop an updated plan and recommend a future direction
for climate protection. After a year of evaluating strategies and considering cost-effectiveness, the
Climate Task Force completed its recommendations in June 2008. (See http://fcgov.com/ctf.) City
staff then evaluated the strategies, updated the assumptions and made adjustments to incorporate
subsequent council and citizen input. The result is the 2008 Fort Collins Climate Action Plan (the
Plan) and Proposed Addendum.
111. 2008 Fort Collins Climate Action Plan
The 2008Fort Collins Climate Action Plan builds upon existing successes and encompasses a range
ofstrategies such as expanding the successful Climate Wise Program, increasing residential and
business recycling, reducing vehicle miles traveled, and providing various incentives for reducing
CO2 and increasing energy efficiency. The majority of actions that reduce emissions also support
other local community goals and contribute to sustaining Fort Collins as a vibrant, world class
community.
267
December 1, 2008
The draft 2008 Fort Collins Climate Action Plan contains several quantified strategies and sixteen
qualitative strategies to put Fort Collins on a path towards the 2020 reduction goal. The Plan
presents a medium level of detail for the proposed strategies.
Table I provides the list of quantified reduction strategies in the Climate Action Plan.
Table ].Quantified Measures Climate Action Plan
Measure Name
2012 Estimated
Benefit
(Tons CO1e)
2020 Estimated
Benefit
(Tons CO2e)
Existing Measures
104,000
104,000
NEW MEASURES
COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP
Expand Climate Wise
73,000-94,000
143,000
Government Organizations set GHG Goals
42,000
217,000
Community -wide Climate Challenge
28,000
34,000
Colorado Carbon Fund
5,000
8,000
Community Leadership Subtotal
]48,000-169,000
402,000
RECYCLING -Push toward 50%Diversion Goal
Ban cardboard from waste stream
46,000-58,000
93,000
Private paper/glass drop-off
5,000-6,000
8,000
Increase residential education
4,000-5,000
15,000
Larger residential recycling containers
3,0004,000
5,000
Require haulers to provide residential yard waste
collection for added cost
1,000
1,000
Enhance residential PAYT (2nd can costs more)
11,000-17,000
21,000
Commercial recycling co-ops
1,000-7,000
8,000
Residential yard waste drop-off and ban yard waste
04,000
5,000
Construction and demolition (C&D) drop-off
0-34,000
39,000
C&D contract preferences for City contracts
1,000
1,000
December 2, 2008
Measure Name
2012 Estimated
Benefit
(Tons CO2e)
2020 Estimated
Benefit
(Tons CO2e)
Commercial recycling fee embedded in rates
(additional benefit above cardboard ban)
81,000
Recycling Subtotal
73,000-137,000
253,000
ENERGY
2008 Energy Policy
Efficiency programs
20,000-30,000
214,000
SmartGrid, Advanced metering infrastructure,
pricing, conservation
10,000-20,000
246,000
Renewable energy (Colorado Renewable
Portfolio Standard and voluntary programs)
0
190,000
Natural Gas Energy Conservation
5,000-10,000
52,000
Energy Subtotal
35,000-60,000
t703,000
GREEN BUILDING
Update Residential Building Code
1,000
4,000
TRANSPORTATION
Reduce vehicle miles of travel
2,000-12,000
14,000
Modern roundabouts
1,000
2,000
Transportation Subtotal
3,000-13,000
16,000
TOTAL (after double -counting removed*)
268,000-378,000
1,212,000
If all strategies in the plan were implemented, they would achieve between 268,000 — 378, 000 tons
CO2e avoided by 2012 (approximately 55 to 80%of the 2012 stated reduction intent) and 1,212, 000
tons CO2e avoided by 2020 (approximately 90% of the 2020 reduction goal).
Cost estimates of quantified measures are provided in Attachment 1.
Fort Collins' 2020 goal allows the opportunity to embrace strategies that have a long-term benefit
yet take more time to develop and implement. The Climate Action Plan also includes measures that
have not been quantified but that can play an important role in making progress towards the 2020
goal. These strategies are listed in Table 2 below and described in the draft Climate Action Plan.
Table 2. Summary ofNon-Quantified Measures
269
December 2, 2008
Community Engagement
• City of Fort Collins Government Leadership
Transportation
• Seek adequate funding to implement transportation plans, with funding for transit
as a priority to achieve best practices.
• Develop partnerships to reduce vehicle travel
• Parking management
Land Use
• Implement Land Use Code changes that support greenhouse gas emissions
reductions.
• Promote and pursue infell and refill development
• Promote transit -oriented development
• Consider requirements for new developments to have less travel demand than
comparable existing developments.
Green Building
• Regular updates of Building Energy Codes.
• Continued support for above Code green building initiatives.
• Time of sale Energy Conservation Ordinance
• Require Green Building as a prerequisite for public financing
• Explore Net Zero Ready homes.
• Explore LEED for neighborhoods.
Urban Forestry
• Promote tree planting.
Support state and federal climate protection actions.
IV.. Proposed Addendum
At the October 28, 2008 work session Council reviewed the draft Climate Action Plan, provided a
number of comments and asked staff to prepare an alternateplan that would fully meet the 2012 and
2020 greenhouse gas reduction objectives adopted in May 2008. The ProposedAddendum attached
to the Resolution (Option A) as Exhibit B was prepared in response to Council comments and it
provides additional strategies to meet the 2012 and 2020 reduction objectives.
The greenhouse gas reduction measures contained in the original draft plan, plus the additional
strategies in the Proposed Addendum, iffully implemented, would meet the 2012 and 2020 reduction
objectives. If the Proposed Addendum is adopted, it will be incorporated into the draft Climate
Action Plan in the manner described in the Addendum, in order to create the final Fort Collins
Climate Action Plan.
270
December 2, 2008
A. Proposed New Quantified Strategies
The following quantified strategies are recommended as an addendum to the 2008 Climate Action
Plan in order to close the gap to meet the 2012 and 2020 reduction objectives, without being over-
reaching. They are discussed in more detail in the Addendum and summarized in Table 3 below.
• Purchase certified carbon offsets
• Construction and Demolition Debris Deposit
• Long-term VMT Reduction
• Increase Per Capita Reduction Goal in the Community Climate Challenge
• Increase participation goals in Colorado Carbon Fund
Table 3. Quantified Strategies in the Proposed Addendum
ADDITIONAL BENEFIT of Potential Additional
Strategies
2012
Tons CO2e
2020
Tons CO2e
Purchase Carbon Offsets
77,000
81,000
Additional VMT Reduction by 2020
28,000
Add recycling strategy— Construction and Demolition
Deposit
20,000
44,000
Increase participation targets.for Community Climate
Challenge
3,000
3,000
Increase participation targets Colorado Carbon Fund
7,000
7,000
Subtotal ofAdditional Strategies
107,000
163,000
Measures in Climate Action Plan
268,000-
378,000
1,212,000
TOTAL measures in Climate Action Plan plus
Addendum (After double -counting)
375,000-
485,000
1,375,000
Reductions Needed to meet Objectives
t 485,000
1 1,375,000
Cost estimates are provided in Attachment 1.
B. Proposed Changes to Qualitative long-term strategies
• Replace: "Time of Sale Energy Ordinance" with "Explore Additional Opportunities to
Increase Efficiency of Existing Buildings"
Instead of calling. for long-term consideration ofa Time of Sale Energy Conservation ordinance, the
Plan now identifies a range ofincentive-based and regulatory approaches that could be considered
271
December 2, 2008
to increase the efficiency of existing buildings after other strategies in the Plan have been
implemented.
• Add: Integrated Waste Optimization
The strategy incorporates whole systems -thinking by recognizing that there is embodied energy in
"waste' materials that are buried in the landfill that could be put to a higher use. A new, non -
quantified long-term strategy has been proposed that would reduce the direct methane emissions of
the landfill by converting the embodied energy in the residual waste stream (materials not already
diverted.for reuse or recycling) into useable energy through non -combustion clean "conversion
technologies ".
• Modify: City of Fort Collins Leadership to add promotion of Fort Collins as a "Green "
Community
Further progress on carbon reduction activities will provide additional opportunities for Fort
Collins to promote itself as a "Green" community. This strategy was recommended by the
Economic Advisory Commission.
• Expand: Promote Action at State, Regional, and Federal Levels
In addition to recognizing the importance of supporting state and federal programs aimed at
reducing emissions, it adds text estimating the GHG benefit Fort Collins would receive if Colorado
adopts clean fuel requirements and the California Clean Car emissions standards.
C. Other Proposed Modifications to Climate Action Plan
• Add brief discussion of climate change science to the Climate Action Plan.
• Expand the Acknowledgments section to include an explicit recognition ofthe Climate Task
Force members, boards and commissions and the Fort Collins Sustainability Group for their
roles in advancing this plan.
1! Public Input
Public comment was gathered on the 2008 Fort Collins Climate Action Plan from stakeholder
groups, interested citizens via the Web, and at a public Open House on November I2, 2008. This
outreach included:
Stakeholder Groups
Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce — November 14, 2008
Fort Collins Board of Realtors — November 20, 2008
272
December 2, 2008
The Public
Comments were invited via the on-line Web comment form
City Council Advisory Boards
Air Quality Advisory Board — October 20 and November 17, 2008
Economic Advisory Commission — October 23, 2008
Electric Board — October 15 and November 19, 2008
Natural Resources Advisory Board — October 15 and November 19, 2008
Transportation Board — October 15, 2008
All written comments received by the Natural Resources Department on the Plan since October 2008
are provided in Attachment 2.
VI. Implementation Schedule
The 2008 Fort Collins Climate Action Plan and Proposed Addendum provide a list ofstrategies that,
if fully implemented, would achieve the 2012 reduction intent and the 2020 reduction goal. Table
4 below outlines the anticipated first steps in implementing the Climate Action Plan.
Table 4. Anticipated Climate Action Plan Implementation Schedule.for 2009
Action
Timing
Council
Action
Required?
Budget request to expand Climate Wise resources
2009 exceptions
Yes
request or request in
201012011 BFO
Community Climate Challenge
Pilot challenge in
No
2009
Colorado Carbon Fund
Formalize
No
relationship via small
outreach grant
Council work session to review alternative trash
December 9, 2008
No
services strategies
273
December 2, 2008
Action
Timing
Council
Action
Required?
Potential trash services strategies to be implemented:
2009
Yes
Increase education and outreach
• Larger recycling containers
Revise the Pay -as -you -throw Ordinance
• Curbside yard waste%ompost options
Ban cardboard from waste stream
Develop Implementation Plan for 2008 Energy Policy
First Quarter 2009
Council
review
Begin implementing strategies in Energy Policy
2009
No
Implementation Plan
Update Residential Building Code
2009
Yes
Transit Strategic Plan
2009
Yes
BFO Requests to implement action in Climate Action
November 2009
Yes
Plan i.e., consideration of Natural Gas Franchise Fee
to be effective in 2010, resources to monitor and track
progress, etc.
VI. Reporting Process
Annual progress reports and the biennial reviewprocess called for by City Council Resolution 2008-
051 will provide a critical opportunity to maintain accountability to the goals and to update and
adjust the Plan in the future. Details on the reporting schedule for 2009, 2010 and 2011 are
identified in Table 5 below.
Table 5. Climate Action Plan Reporting Schedule for 2009 - 2011
Action
Timeline
2009
Review Community Emissions Inventory Protocol and update as
needed
First quarter 2009
Climate Wise partner reporting for 2008
By April 2009
Energy Policy Report for 2008
By May 2009
274
December Z, 2008
Action
Timeline
Community Emissions Status Report for 2008 (including inventory,
By June 2009
quantified reductions, and progress towards goals for the community
and municipal government
Develop and submit BFO budget recommendations associated with
May or June 2009
Climate Action Plan
2010
Community Emissions Status Report for 2009 (including inventory,
By June 2010
quantified reductions and progress towards goals for the community
and municipal government)
2011
Community Emissions Status Report for 2010 (including inventory,
By April 15, 2011
quantified reductions and progress towards goal for the community
and the municipal government
Involved relevant Council advisory boards in process to review
April and May 2011
progress and develop recommended climate protection actions for
201212013
Develop and submit BFO budget recommendations
May 2011 "
City Manager Atteberry stated in 1999, Fort Collins was one of the first cities in the nation to adopt
a greenhouse gas reduction goal and plan. New emission reduction goals were set this year that align
with the goals established for Colorado. The proposed Policy sets a framework for making progress
on these goals. Adoption of the Plan does not commit the Council to funding or use of resources or
create any new laws at this time. The Plan has a menu of many options that Council will consider
in the future. Adoption of the Resolution approves the list of strategies contained in the Plan for
future consideration and allows for other strategies to be added in the future. Only a few new
strategies in the Plan could be implemented without additional Council action because they can be
done with existing resources. Adoption of the Plan does not increase utility rates or adopt tiered
electric rates because increasing rates or changing the rate structure can only be done by Council
action. The Community Climate Challenge is one program that can be implemented with existing
resources, relying on existing staff and incentive programs already in place. Establishing
requirements that address construction demolition debris in City contracts can also be put in place.
Current programs such as ClimateWise will continue. Many strategies listed in the Plan support
other City goals such as waste diversion and increased mobility. The Plan requires that staff present
an annual report to Council of the progress made toward reaching the goals.
Lucinda Smith, Senior Environmental Planner, stated the Plan will help Fort Collins meet its
greenhouse gas reduction goals. To meet those goals, a reduction of 485,000 tons of COZe by 2012
is necessary. By 2020, 1.75 million tons of COZe must be reduced. One feature of the Climate
275
December 2, 2008
Action Plan is a focus on local action and making changes that are within local control. The Plan
has a range of approaches, including education incentives and some regulations. It attempts to
engage all stakeholders and address all sources of emissions, which include electricity, natural gas,
transportation and waste generation. It builds on existing successes, contains cost effective strategies
that can support the economy and provide many other benefits to the community. The ClimateWise
Program has been successful in reducing carbon emissions and saving businesses over $12 million
in energy efficiencies and the recommendation is to enhance that program. Another recommended
strategy is to participate in the Colorado Carbon Fund by encouraging citizens and businesses to
voluntarily purchase carbon offsets from the Fund. Those purchases will support the City's economy
since purchasing offsets from the Fund keeps the revenue in the state and a portion of the revenue
invested from Fort Collins will be redirected to the community for new projects. Expansion in the
area of energy efficiency and green building offers the opportunity for job growth. Most of the
strategies proposed in the Plan must undergo Council consideration before they canbe implemented.
Many of the proposed actions would come before Council even if they were not included in the
Climate Action Plan because they support other City goals.
If the strategies in the proposed Plan are implemented, the City will still fall short of the reduction
goals. At the request of Council at a work session on October 28, staff has developed an alternative
Plan that would fully meet the reduction goals. The proposed addendum to the Plan has been
prepared as a supplement to the Plan and, if the addendum and the Plan are fully implemented, the
reduction goals would be achieved. The first strategy in the addendum is to purchase or acquire
carbon offsets which are acquired by investing in carbon reduction projects that are occurring
elsewhere. This strategy is recommended to be implemented only after all the other direct reduction
measures are implemented in the community. The second strategy calls for establishing a deposit
system for construction and demolition debris where projects of a certain size would make a deposit,
and, if it was shown the project recycled materials, the deposit would be returned. Another strategy
calls for more reducing more vehicle miles traveled in the long term. The addendum contains two
modifications of strategies contained in the Plan. One increases the participation targets of the
Community Climate Challenge and another increases the voluntary participation in the Colorado
Carbon Fund.
Concerns have been expressed about the use of a time of sale energy conservation ordinance and the
addendum removes that ordinance as a specific, isolated strategy to consider in the long term and
replaces it with a list of strategies that could be explored to increase the efficiency of existing
buildings after other strategies included in the Energy Policy are implemented. Another qualitative
strategy proposed in the addendum would optimize the waste stream to the landfill by utilizing new
technologies to use the energy contained with the landfill to create useful energy through non-
combustible processes.
There are costs associated with the implementation of the Plan. Staff does not have cost estimates
on all the proposed strategies at this time, but the cost estimates will be fully developed before
Council considers the individual actions. Significant savings can result from these strategies. Staff
will present an annual report to Council on the progress made towards reaching the goals that have
been established and will recommend future strategies every other year. Council has two options
to consider. Option A would adopt both the Climate Action Plan and the addendum, which together
276
December 2, 2008
would meet the 2012 and 2020 milestones. Option B would adopt only the Climate Action Plan, but
not the proposed addendum. These strategies would meet 55-80% of the 2012 reduction goal and
90% of the 2020 goal. Adoption of the Plan sets the Plan as the blueprint for achieving the goals but
does not commit budget resources or take action to implement any of the specific strategies at this
time.
John Stokes, Natural Resources Director, stated many concerns have been raised about the net costs
of the Plan. One example of net savings of costs is the ClimateWise Program, which is a leading
strategy in the Plan. The City has spent $300,000 in the past year on this Program. During that time,
businesses have implemented many new projects to reduce energy consumption, water consumption
and divert more trash and have saved $440,000, which greatly outweighs the costs of the Program.
The businesses have also reduced their carbon footprint by 50,000 tons of CO2. Energy efficiencies
will help the City achieve its carbon reduction goal. Many of the strategies in the Plan do contain
up front costs, but the paybacks associated with the investments will outweigh those costs.
City Manager Atteberry stated the Climate Task Force and staff have devoted a large amount of time
in developing this Plan and the City's Executive Team is committed to helping the City reach the
goals set by Council.
The following citizens spoke in support of adoption of the Climate Action Plan:
Sue Radford, Fort Collins resident
Fred Kirsch, 509 South Bryan
Alan Apt, 520 North Sherwood
John Anderson, Fort Collins resident
Sue McFaddin, 6021 Wild View Drive
Carl Brunning, Fort Collins resident
Richard Karmarsh, Fort Collins resident
Kevin Cross, 300 Peterson
Jeff Schneider, Home Builders Association of Northern Colorado
Phil Friedman, 201 South Grant
Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset
Jessica Ive, CSU student
Eric Levine, 514 North Shields
Eric Sutherland, 631 LaPorte Avenue
Dan Bihn, 421 South Howes
Liz Pruessner, 712 Ponderosa Drive
Katie Hoffner, Fort Collins resident
Will Walters, 1701 Tanglewood Drive
Rick Coen, 412 Garfield
Scott Mason, Fort Collins resident
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb
277
December 2. 2008
The following citizens opposed adoption of the Climate Action Plan:
Came Gillis, 2213 Timber Creek Drive
Dr. William Gray, 110 Fishback Avenue
Ralph Waldo, 1115 Parkwood Drive
Mike Bello, 2309 Sunstone Drive
Chris Guillan, Fort Collins Board of Realtors
Michelle Jacobs, Fort Collins Board of Realtors
Joe Rowan, 621 Gilgalad Way
Debbie Tamlin, President of Fort Collins Board of Realtors
Clint Skutchan, 719 Great Plains Court, Executive Vice President Fort Collins Board of Realtors
David May, 225 South Meldrum, Chamber of Commerce President, stated the Chamber supported
the ClimateWise Program but did not support all strategies in the Plan. Transparency concerning
the costs of the strategies will be essential as each strategy is brought forward for Council
consideration.
(**Secretary's note: The Council recessed at 8:10 pm and returned at 8:25 p.m.)
Councilmember Poppaw asked how many groups received a presentation of the Plan from staff.
Smith stated presentations were made to various boards and commissions, the Chamber of
Commerce's Legislative Committee, the Board of Realtors Governance Committee and a public
open house was held.
Councilmember Roy asked why a commercial pay -as -you -throw regulation was not included in the
Plan and how much money could be saved with the implementation of such a program. Smith stated
adding commercial recycling rates to commercial trash fees is included as a long-term strategy for
2020. A simpler and more efficient way to achieve about half the reduction of a full commercial
recycling program would occur if disposal of cardboard is banned from the wastestream. The
cardboard ban would achieve 58,000 tons of carbon reduction. If a full commercial recycling
program were implemented and achieved the model 2015 level of benefit, 139,000 tons of carbon
reduction could be realized, which would lower the need for purchasing carbon offsets by 81,000
tons.
Councilmember Manvel noted it will be difficult to add a commercial pay -as -you -throw program
as different types of businesses will create very different amounts of trash and recycling and it is
difficult to develop a billing system for such disparate groups. He asked if it is feasible to build
commercial recycling into trash rates or if there was another way to achieve commercial recycling.
Councilmember Troxell stated the community has placed a great value on sustainability and many
businesses are on the leading edge of the renewable energy market. The community must accept
many of the strategies voluntarily for any change to be realized. The addendum in Option A
mandates many short-term strategies and would not build voluntary community support.
278
December 2, 2008
Councilmember Ohlson stated he did not support adoption of the addendum because the process has
not allowed enough time for public input and Council consideration. He also requested removal of
any mandates of upgrades at time of sale of properties from the Plan.
Councilmember Roy stated he did not support mandating efficiencies at the time of sale of property
but he did support development of an energy star rating that people could use that would reflect
energy efficiencies added to a property.
Councilmember Manvel stated newer vehicles produce less CO2 emissions and many more new
vehicles are now on the roads. He asked if the projections of reduction of CO2 took into account
the fact that fewer older vehicles will be driven as time goes by. Smith stated the projections did not
include any data on newer vehicles. The "business as usual' scenario examines the current fleet mix
and projects out from current data. Any new air quality control requirements placed on new vehicles
at the state level will have a positive impact on the reduction of emissions.
Councilmember Manvel stated the Light and Power Utility has incentives for people to replace
appliances with newer, more efficient models and he asked if any consideration was given to offering
incentives for Fort Collins residents to drive cleaner vehicles.
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Resolution
2008-122, Option B.
City Attorney Roy asked if the intent of the motion was to adopt Option B with the exception of the
references in the Plan to the "time of sale" energy conservation measures. If so, language should be
added to the resolution in Section I to read "that the 2008 Fort Collins Climate Action Plan is hereby
approved and adopted with the exception of any references therein to the Time of Sale Energy
Conservation Ordinance and such Plan shall supercede the 1999 local action plan to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions."
Councilmembers Ohlson and Troxell accepted the amended language to the motion.
Councilmember Poppaw did not support the purchase of offsets because they are not a local
investment. Smith stated the Plan does list participation in the Colorado Carbon Fund which
involves voluntary participation by citizens and businesses who are currently buying offsets from
other places. The Plan does not encourage the purchase of offsets for projects not located in
Colorado.
Poppaw expressed her support for the Plan because it is good for the community, the environment
and the economy. Efforts should be made to achieve the 2012 goal.
Councilmember Manvel supported the Plan and encouraged staff to continue to work towards
achieving the 2012 goal and to develop local conservation and efficiency measures. He noted most
strategies listed in the Plan will be brought back to Council for consideration before those strategies
can be put into place.
279
December 2, 2008
Councilmember Roy stated the Plan is an investment in the future for Fort Collins and is a first step
towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. He did not support the use of carbon offsets to reach
the goals. He wanted more options to help Fort Collins reach the 2012 goal.
Councilmember Troxell stated the costs need to be clearly outlined on each strategy that comes
before Council so the decision can be made on a cost benefit basis. Affordable housing and the cost
of doing business in Fort Collins need to be considered when each strategy is brought forward.
Councilmember Ohlson asked for frequent reports on progress made towards reaching the 2012 and
2020 goals and for new strategies that will help Fort Collins meet the 2012 goals. City Manager
Atteberry stated the list of strategies is not all-inclusive and new strategies will be brought forward
as they are developed.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the price of inaction can be greater than the costs of implementing
any strategies and needs to be considered when weighing whether to implement any strategy.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the strategies of energy efficiencies offer great savings and will encourage
citizens to participate. The Plan contains many efficiencies that will be cost effective. The impact
of costs to residents and businesses needs to be considered.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Manager Atteberry recommended the Urban Renewal Authority meeting be postponed to a later
date as Council has several matters yet to consider that will take quite a bit of time. Council agreed
to postpone the Urban Renewal Authority meeting.
Councilmember Ohlson asked that consideration of Item #33 Resolution 2008-123 Approving and
Adopting an Updated Energy Policy be postponed.
Council agreed to hear public comment on Resolution 2008-123.
Jim Welch, owner of a solar company, supported the use of wind energy and use of Smart Grid,
combined with on -site renewable and distributive energy which would reduce the need for off -site
coal plants. He did not think the proposed Energy Policy made a bold leadership statement in the
use of clean energy.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to postpone
consideration of Item #33 Resolution 2008-123 Approving and Adopting an Updated Energy Policy
to January 6, 2009. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
December 2, 2008
("Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Consideration of the Appeal by Randy Whitman
of the October 16, 2008 Determination of the
Planning and Zoning Board to Deny the Whitman Storage
Facility — Addition of Permitted Use, Planning and Zoning Board Decision Upheld
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On October 16, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing considering the
Whitman Storage Facility —Addition ofPermitted Use. The request was to add Recreational Vehicle,
Boat and Truck Storage in the C, Commercial portion of the property. The Board considered
testimony from the applicant, the public and Staff. The request was denied. Randy Whitman, the
applicant for the request, has appealed the Board's decision.
TheAppellant's allegations are that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and
apply relevant portions of the City Land Use Code and Charter.
BACKGROUND
This is a request to add Recreational Vehicle, Boat and Truck Storage as an Addition ofPermitted
Use in the Commercial zone district, specifically for a portion of the property at 209 East Skyway
Drive. The property is partially developed. The property was annexed into the City of Fort Collins
as part of Phase I of the Southwest Enclave Annexation in November, 2006 and zoned UE, Urban
Estate. The property was rezoned to C, commercial (west 213) and RL, Low Density Residential (east
113) in January, 2008 by City Council. The parcel to be used for the aforementioned recreational
vehicle, boat and truck storage is a portion of Lot 3 in the south ''Y2 of the Whitman Storage Facility
subdivision plat. It is approximately one acre in size and zoned C, Commercial. Section 1.3.4
Addition of Permitted Uses of the Land Use Code provides criteria for Required Findings,
Certification of New Use, and Conditions that may be imposed on approval of such use.
ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
At the October 16, 2008 regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board, the Board considered
the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners and staffand voted 4 — 2 to deny the request
for an Addition ofPermitted Use on a portion of the property at 209 East Skyway Drive.
ALLEGATIONS ONAPPEAL
On November 5, 2008, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's Office from Randy
Whitman, 209 E. Skyway Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80525.
The Appellant alleges that:
281
December 2, 2008
1. The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant portions of the
City Land Use Code and Charter, including, without limitation, the following:
"Article 1, Division 1.3.4
1. Failure togive due weight to Timothy Wilder's statements that the two adjacent south
lots are going to be rezoned CL in the foreseeable future as part of the City's new plan for the
area. The decision exalts form over substance and is in derogation of the intent and spirit of the
code.
2. Failure to properly interpret "site specific" as a basis for a decision. "
"Article 2. Division 2.8
1. Both appellant and staff spent many hours coming to an agreement of higher
standards by both parties that sufficiently protect the City and its residents.
2. The progression ofgrowth along the South College Corridor is coming and the need
for ultimate resolution has come. The appellant has complied with innumerable requirements
of the City, and the proposed use was disclosed and discussed when appellant received his
rezoning last year from City Council on a 7-0 vote.
3. The appellant needs the income in order to continue to stay in business.
4. If the proposed outdoor -stored vehicles were for sale, they would be permitted as a
use by right. The denial was irrational. "
"Charter Section IV.7
1. Board member Gino Campana has a financial interest and personal interest in the
hearing's outcome, he was very vocal in urging the outcome that was favorable to his said
interests, and he voted accordingly to the detriment of the appellant. He ought to have refrained
from attempting to influence the result and from voting. "
"Article 3, Division 3.5.3(C)(1)
1. TheBoardatMr.Campana'sinstigation, introduced newfindings,specificationsand
requirements that had never been an issue prior to coming into the October 16, 2008 meeting.
This caught everyone offguard including the staff who stated that it was not an issue. "
QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER
1. Did the Planning and Zoning Board not properly interpret and apply relevant portions of the
City Land Use Code and Charter?
STAFFANALYSISAND CONCLUSIONS
Article 1, Division 1.3.4
Appellant's Statement:
Failure to give due weight to Timothy Wilder's statements that the
two adjacent south lots aregoing to be rezoned CL in theforeseeable
future as part of the City's new plan for the area. The decision exalts
form over substance and is in derogation of the intent and spirit of
the code.
282
December 2, 2008
Staffs Response: Staffs comment to the Planning and Zoning Board, after conferring with
Timothy Wilder, the Advance Planning Department's project manager for the South College
Corridor Plan, was that Mr. Wilder had stated that two properties south ofand adjacent to Mr.
Whitman's property, currently zoned UE, Urban Estate, were probably going to be
recommended to be zoned CL, Limited Commercial on the South College Corridor Framework
Plan, when adopted. However, the Planning and Zoning Board correctly used the existing
adopted data to make its decision.
Appellant's Statement: Failure to properly interpret "site specific "as a basisfor a decision.
Staff'sResponse: Thereferenceto "site specif:c"was made byCity sta during its presentation
to the Planning and Zoning Board. Staffsaid that theproposed Addition ofPermitted Use would
be specific to this particular site, being the property at 209 East Skyway Drive zoned C,
Commercial, and would not be added to the C District City-wide. Staff believes that the Board
understood the distinction.
Article 2 Division 2.8
Appellant's Statement: Both appellant and staff spent many hours coming to an agreement
of higher standards by both parties that sufficiently protect the City
and its residents.
Staffs Response: The Appellant and City staff did spend a significant amount of time working
together to come to agreement on an appropriate Addition ofPermitted Use to be proposed on
a portion of his property. The Planning and Zoning Board, after receiving additional
information during the public hearing, did not find that the standards were met.
Appellant's Statement: The progression of growth along the South College Corridor is
coming and the need for ultimate resolution has come. The appellant
has complied with innumerable requirements of the City, and the
proposed use was disclosed and discussed when appellant received
his rezoning last year from City Council on a 7-0 vote.
Staffs Response: Based on the action taken by City Council in January, 2008 to place the west
portion of Mr. Whitman's property in the C, Commercial zone district, the proposed use
(Recreational Vehicle, Boat and Truck Storage) was just a point ofdiscussion but did not factor
into the final decision by Council and is not germane to this finding. Recreational Vehicle, Boat
and Truck Storage is not permitted in the C zone, so Council's action in January, 2008 to
rezone to C did not authorize the use at the time of the rezoning. The "Addition ofa Permitted
Use" process Land Use Code amendment had not been adopted at the time of the Whitman
property rezoning.
Appellant's Statement: The appellant needs the income in order to continue to stay in
business.
Ow
December 2, 2008
Staffs Response: The Planning and Zoning Board does not consider an applicant's income
when making a land use decision.
Appellant's Statement: If the proposed outdoor -stored vehicles were for sale, they would be
permitted as a use by right. The denial was irrational.
Staffs Response: During City staffpresentation to the Planning and Zoning Board it was stated
that Vehicle and boat sales and leasing with outdoor storage is a permitted use in the C,
Commercial District.
Charter Section IV.7
Appellant's Statement: Board member Gino Campana has a financial interest and personal
interest in the hearing's outcome, he was very vocal in urging the
outcome that was favorable to his said interests, and he voted
accordingly to the detriment of the appellant. He ought to have
refrained from attempting to influence the result and from voting.
Staffs Response: The City Code specifies, in Section 1-48(b), the grounds upon which a
decision maybe appealed to the City Council. While there are other provisions in the Code that
deal with alleged conflicts ofinterest, and other avenues ofrecourse available to Mr. Campana
to address the concern he has expressed, an alleged conflict of interest is not one of the grounds
upon which an appeal can be based.
Article 3, Division 3.5.3(C)(1)
Appellant's Statement: The Board at Mr. Campana's instigation, introduced new findings,
specifications and requirements that had never been an issue prior to
coming into the October 16, 2008 meeting. This caught everyone off
guard including the staff who stated that it was not an issue.
Staffs Response: Related to the Whitman Storage Facility —Addition of Permitted Use request,
it is unclear about the new findings, specifications and requirements that Mr. Whitman is
referring to based on the information in the minutes of the October 16, 2008 Planning and
Zoning Board hearing.
Staff, therefore, finds that the Planning and Zoning Board did not fail to properly interpret and
apply relevant portions of the City Land Use Code and Charter.
LIST OF RELEVANT CODE PROVISIONS
1. Section 1.3.4 Addition of Permitted Uses
2. Article 3 General Development Standards
3. Article 3, Section 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility
4. Article 4, Division 4.21 Commercial District"
RM
December 2, 2008
City Attorney Roy explained the appeal process. He noted Council is reviewing, at the request of
the appellant, a decision of the Planning and Zoning Board which consists of reviewing the record
on appeal. No new evidence is admissible on an appeal, except in response to questions from the
Council. Presentations to Council are limited to parties -in -interest, which consist of the appellant,
persons who appeared before the Planning and Zoning Board or submitted written comments to the
Board or were within the notice area. Council's decision is to be based upon the record and the
relevant criteria in the City's Land Use Code and the presentation of the parties.
Steve Olt, City Planner, stated the request is to add recreational vehicle, boat and truck storage as
an addition of permitted use in the Commercial zone district, specifically for a portion of the
property at 209 East Skyway Drive. The property is partially developed at this time, with 2/3 of the
property located in the Commercial zone district and 1/3 in the Low Density Residential zone
district. Staff did recommend to the Planning and Zoning Board to allow the addition of permitted
use. The Board considered testimony of the applicant, affected property owners and staff and voted
to deny the request.
Mayor Hutchinson asked Council to disclose any site visits made and any relevant observations that
were made. No Councilmembers responded.
Rick Nelson, owner of a neighboring property, supported the appeal because the proposal will aid
the neighborhood by allowing convenient storage facility for the area. A storage facility will allow
owners of recreational vehicles to store those vehicles in a way that complies with covenants of the
neighborhood.
Randy Whitman, 209 East Skyway, appellant, stated he needed to expand his business in order to
remain in business and allowing an outdoor storage facility on his property is essential for that
expansion. The location of the storage facility on his property would be at the back of the property
and would not block the views from Skyway.
Rick Zier, 322 East Oak, attorney representing Mr. Whitman, stated the Planning and Zoning Board
made errors of interpretation of the new procedures in the Land Use Code to add a permitted use to
the Commercial zone. Staff supported the addition of permitted use and no objections were raised
at the neighborhood meeting that was held on this issue. Two members of the Board did not
correctly apply the site -specific criteria in the new procedures. One Board member was never
persuaded this site -specific addition of permitted use would not be a precedent -setting procedure.
This should have been site -specific examination of the context of the area to add a use that is not
more deleterious to the area than any of the permitted uses in the zone. The Board member was not
convinced the Board would not be able to turn down a similar request that might come from a
Commercial zoned property. Staff confirmed this request was a site -specific analysis but the Board
member did not agree, which was an incorrect interpretation of the new procedure.
Another Board member compared the area along Aron Street to South Mason Street, behind REI and
Barnes & Noble Bookstore and stated an outdoor storage facility would not fit into such an area.
This analogy was incorrect because it was not the site -specific analysis called for in the Land Use
Code. The Board member stated the photos of the area around Mr. Whitman's property showed the
285
December 2, 2008
addition of permitted use would be a compatible use, but he felt it was not compatible with the Code.
Two Board members looked at the area and stated they did not think the use was compatible with
the area and voted against the addition of permitted use, but they did not give adequate reasons as
to why they believed it was not compatible. Mr. Whitman's application materials showed that the
location of the additional use on the property helped to mitigate any compatibility issues and those
materials were ignored by the two Board members in their analysis. The location of the storage
facility would be on a portion of the commercially zoned area which is farther to the south and west
to buffer the uses. The property to the south is zoned Urban Estate, but the property owner has not
objected to the proposed outdoor storage facility. The South College Corridor Plan has not yet been
adopted, but will recommend the Urban Estate zoning of that property be rezoned to a commercial -
type zoning district. When the Whitman property was rezoned to Commercial, it allowed outdoor
storage of recreational vehicles if the vehicles are for sale without any fencing or landscaping. The
addition of use requested by Mr. Whitman would not be any more damaging or incompatible than
any permitted use allowed. The storage would be confined to a small portion of the C-zoned area
and it will be amply screened by fencing and landscaping. Compatibility should not be an issue.
Andrea Whitman, 209 East Skyway, stated Council should take into consideration the amount of
time staff and the Whitmans have spent on this issue and compromises that have been made that
were acceptable to both staff and the Whitmans. She urged Council to overturn the Board's
decision.
Brian Schumm, 7203 Woodrow Drive, voiced his opposition to the request for addition of permitted
use. Allowing open storage on the Whitman property will also allow open storage on neighboring
properties. When the property was rezoned Commercial, it was allowed to have enclosed storage.
A sewer line runs diagonally across the property and must be moved before any building can be
erected. If the sewer line would be relocated, enclosed storage could be built and be within the
permitted uses of the zoning. A U-Haul rental place is located next to the property, but it has been
grandfathered in and would not be allowed to be built under current regulations.
The vision for the South College Corridor is for the area to look very different in the future and
allowing open storage will not fit with that vision. The proposal calls for an 8-foot screening fence
and tree plantings to screen the storage facility from view. Most recreational vehicles are taller than
8 feet and will be visible above the fence. He urged Council to deny the appeal.
Randy Whitman, appellant, stated Mr. Schumm is the only person who has opposed this project. He
had contracted with the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District to relocate the sewer line but the City
process has taken so long that the Water District voided the contract and the sewer line will not be
moved. Other outside storage places are located near his property. Denial of the appeal will put him
out of business.
Rick Zier, attorney representing Mr. Whitman, stated the neighborhood meetings were held to allow
public comment and Mr. Schumm is the only person who has opposed the request. Two of the
Planning and Zoning Board members did not seem to understand or properly apply the use of site
specific in applying the Code criteria. Staff has agreed that vehicle and boat sales and leasing with
December 2, 2008
outdoor storage is a permitted use in the Commercial zoning. It is irrational to allow sales of
vehicles but not allow outdoor storage of vehicles.
Brian Schumm, 7203 Woodrow Drive, stated the City has set standards for land development and
the requested exception to the standards is not appropriate. If too many exceptions to the standard
are granted, the standards will mean nothing.
Councilmember Ohlson asked why any addition of permitted use would be allowed.. Olt stated a
new procedure was adopted this year that permits an addition to a permitted use into a zoning district
where the use is not currently permitted. If there is a use that is permitted somewhere in the City but
is not permitted in a specific zone district, the new criteria in the Land Use Code allows an applicant
to request an addition of a permitted use that is not currently in that zoning district on a site -specific
basis.
Councilmember Ohlson asked for staffs perspective on the Board's decision. Olt stated staff had
recommended approval of the request to the Board and the Board did not agree. Staff still believes
the addition of the permitted use is appropriate for the property.
Councilmember Ohlson asked what the consequences were for a property owner who consistently
disregarded the regulations for land use and did not provide the required repairs necessary to bring
a property into compliance. Olt stated a cease and desist order could be issued and citations could
be issued if a business were in violation for a long period of time.
Councilmember Ohlson asked why an 8-foot fence would be considered an acceptable height to
screen recreational vehicles that are routinely much taller. Olt stated the property currently has
automobiles, boats and the recreational vehicles range in height from 9 to I 1 feet stored on site and
the height of vehicles that would be stored there in the future is unknown. The fence would be a
solid, 8-foot high fence with deciduous trees and shrubs on the outside to screen the fence. Staff did
not feel the appearance would be detrimental or out of character for the area. The required deciduous
trees must be minimum of 2-inch caliper tree and within 5-10 years should have a significant crown
to provide screening and the type of tree is not specified in the landscape plan.
Councilmember Ohlson noted the Board had stated at its hearing that it was not allowed to consider
economic factors when making a decision. Olt stated from a Land Use standpoint, the Board or a
hearing officer is not allowed to consider economics when reaching a decision.
Councilmember Manvel asked if outdoor storage was only allowed in the I -Industrial zone. Olt
answered in the affirmative.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the U-Haul business would be allowed today if it were requesting
a permit. Peter Bames, Zoning Supervisor, stated the C-Commercial zone allows equipment truck
and trailer rental establishments, so the U-Haul business would be permitted. Outdoor storage of
vehicles that do not move for more than 24 hours is required to be screened. U-Haul does not have
a fence or screening because of the rapid turnover of the equipment.
287
December 2, 2008
Councilmember Manvel asked if vehicles for sale needed to be screened from view. Barnes stated
vehicle and boat sale and leasing establishments are permitted within the C-zone and are not required
to have screening, but they do have other landscaping requirements.
Councilmember Troxell asked if allowing the addition of a permitted use would be the same as not
enforcing the current standards. Olt stated the criteria in the Land Use Code allows the director to
add a use to a zone as long as such use is not specifically listed as a permitted use or as a prohibited
use. This addition would be site specific and not applied to the entire zone. Staff evaluated the
addition of the permitted use, the nature and context of the use against criteria of the context of the
surrounding area, traffic generation, compliance with the governing overall development plan,
development standards. Standards were applied to the request and staffs recommendation to the
Board took those standards into consideration.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if staff considered the fact that this propertywas brought into the City
under the Southwest Enclave Annexation. Olt answered in the negative. The procedure to request
an addition to permitted use was adopted into the Land Use Code earlier this year and staff used that
procedure to develop its recommendation.
Councilmember Ohlson asked what compromises the City made in developing this proposed plan.
Olt stated many meetings were held between staff and the Whitmans to reach agreement as to what
would be necessary to comply with the Code. Staff did not compromise any standards set in the
Code but worked with the Whitmans to develop a plan that was agreeable to them and met the City's
standards.
Councilmember Roy asked staff discussed the concept of "site -specific" with the Board and whythe
addition of permitted use would not be expanded to other properties. Olt stated staff made it clear
to the Board that the addition of permitted use would be specific to this particular site only on the
Commercial zone portion of the property. As staff evaluated the request, it looked at the nature of
the request, relative to other sites to the north and west of the property and determined the additional
use would be appropriate for that portion of the property. Staff did define the term "site specific"
to the Board and the Board understood the distinction but it did not agree with the staff
recommendation.
Mayor Hutchinson noted Council could choose to either uphold, overturn or modify the Board's
decision or remand the decision for further consideration of additional issues.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to uphold the decision
of the Planning and Zoning Board denying a request for an addition ofpermitted use to the Whitman
Storage Facility Addition of Permitted Use Project 1108B because the Board did not fail to properly
interpret and apply the provisions of the Land Use Code in denying the addition of a permitted use.
Councilmember Manvel stated the request seemed an appropriate use on the site since there are
buildings to the north ofthe site that would offer even more screening from Skyway Drive and would
be compatible with the area.
NaN
December 2, 2008
Councilmember Ohlson stated it appeared the Board held a fair hearing on the issue and he asked
if there were any other actions Council could consider. City Attorney Roy stated there is no
allegation of denial of a fair hearing. Council must consider whether it agrees with the way in which
the Board interpreted the Code provisions related to this situation and application.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if there were other measures that couldbe considered to minimizethe
impact on adjoining properties. Olt stated other measures could be required by Council such as
raising the height of the fence or increasing the size of the trees. Staff determined an 8-foot fence
was tall enough to provide adequate screening and less intrusive than a taller fence. The landscape
plan calls for 40-foot spacing of trees in front of the fence, but Council could require a greater
number of trees or increase the size of trees.
City Manager Atteberry asked if any limit could be placed on the height of vehicles to be stored on
the site. Olt stated a height limit had not been discussed with Mr. Whitman. At the October 16
hearing, one Board member did suggest placing taller vehicles farther away from the fence line to
lessen the impact.
Councilmember Ohlson stated other measures need to be put into place such as more trees, larger
trees and a reasonable limit of the height of vehicles stored if the Board's decision is overturned.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if a decision to remand the issue to the Board was a possibility because
additional issues were being raised during the appeal. City Attorney Roy stated Council could
continue the hearing and give staff time to explore additional measures with the applicant and
affected neighbors and then bring the agreed -upon conditions back to Council. Council could choose
to remand the issue to the Board with directions to consider whether there are additional conditions
that might provide sufficient mitigation. If the appellant does not agree with the Board's decision,
he could file another appeal.
Mr. Whitman agreed to work further with staff to develop other measures to screen the storage
facility from view. He asked Council to consider that the east side of the property is already has
landscaped and that nothing can be seen from Skyway Drive at this time.
Mr. Schumm stated his opposition to allowing any outdoor storage as it is not an appropriate use for
the area.
City Attorney Roy noted if the appeal is continued, new evidence can only be admitted upon the
request of the Council. Council must be clear in its request for new evidence, such as evidence of
existing mitigation, when allowing new information.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the two lots to the south of the Whitman property would be granted
a similar addition of permitted use if they requested it. Olt stated each property must go through the
same process as the Whitman property and be evaluated on a case by case basis. Barnes stated one
criterion used would be that the request confirms to the basic configurations of the zone district and
the other permitted uses in the zone district. If the zoning on the two lots remains UE-Urban Estate,
the decision maker must find that recreational vehicle storage conforms to the other uses allowed in
wo
December 2, 2008
that zone district. The C-zone does allow car sales and equipment rental operations and the UE zone
does not. He noted any limitation on the height of vehicles stored could pose an enforcement issue
that needs to be considered.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if allowing the requested addition of permitted use would allow the
adjoining properties to use the Council's decision as a basis to request a similar addition of permitted
use. Olt stated part of the process includes looking at adjoining properties and this property would
be adjoining those properties. To a degree, this use on the property would be considered to evaluate
any requests from adjoining properties. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated the properties to the
south are in the UE-zone, a different zone district. Council should consider if the proposed use is
appropriate for the zone district the site is in. The C-zone district is different from the UE-zone.
Mr. Schumm stated the rezoning of the property was done at the request of staff and not the property
owner. The South College Corridor Plan proposes to zone the lots to the south as Commercial.
Once those lots are zoned Commercial, they will have the basis to request an addition of permitted
use for outdoor storage because it would allowed on the Whitman property.
Mr. Zier, attorney for the appellant, stated the Board disallowed any testimony regarding the possible
rezoning of the property to the south from UE to Commercial zoning. It was not a basis for the
Board's decision and Council should not be using that as a basis for its decision.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion to postpone the decision of the Council until January 6,
2009. The motion died for lack of a second.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the Board did not fail to properly interpret and apply relevant portions of
the Land Use Code.
The vote on the motion to uphold the Planning and Zoning Board's decision to deny an addition of
permitted use was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: Manvel, Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy to suspend the rules and
conclude the agenda. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consideration of the Appeal by Randy Whitman
of the July 17, 2008 Determination of the Planning and Zoning Board
to Deny the Whitman Storage Facility — Request for a Modification
of Standard Set Forth in Section 3.8.11(C)(1) of the Land Use Code,
Planning and Zoning Board Decision Upheld
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
290
December 2, 2008
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On July 17, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing considering the
Whitman Storage Facility — Request for a Modification of Standard. The Board considered
testimony from the applicant, the public and Staff. The request was denied. Randy Whitman, the
applicant for the request, has appealed the Board's decision. The allegations are that the Planning
and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant portions of the City Code,
particularly those relating to roads, sidewalks, fencing, setbacks, sight distance, nonconforming uses
and structures.
BACKGROUND
This is a commercial project known as the Whitman Storage Facility - Request for a Modification
of Standard. The subject property is located at 209 East Skyway Drive, approximately 500 feed east
of South College Avenue. The property is zoned C, Commercial and RL, Low Density Residential.
The Request is for a Modification of the Standard set forth in Section 3.8.11(C)(1) of the City ofFort
Collins Land Use Code (LUC) that requires fences or walls to be no more than four feet high
between the front building line and front property line. The request is to allow the existing six-foot
high chain link securityfence to remain in place until such time as the ultimate street improvements
to East Skyway Drive are to be made.
ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
At the July 17, 2008 regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board, the Board made the
following findings of fact and conclusions as stated on page 5 of the Staff Report.•
A. The Requested Modification of the Standard to Subsection 3.8.11(C)(1) of the Land Use
Code for the Whitman Storage Facility - Request for a Modification of Standard is subject
to a Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2) review.
B. Granting the requested modification would be detrimental to the public good,
C. The Project Development Plan as submitted, showing the location and height of the existing
fence, will not promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is
requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for
which a modification is requested, as set forth in Section 1.8.2(H)(1) of the LUC.
Based on the requirements set forth in Section 3.8.11 of the LUC the 6 foot high
chain linkfence should be located no closer to the north property line than the front
fagade of the existing "Repair Shop" structure. By City definition the fence is not
being used forscreeningpurposes; therefore, ifcut down to 4 feet in height the fence
in its present location would be in compliance with the LUC.
The location of the fence, being just II feet off of the back of curb for East Skyway
Drive, will not allow for a standard 5 foot wide detached sidewalk with an 8 foot
291
December 2, 2008
wide landscaped parkway within a Collector street ROW. The Applicant is proposing
to construct a permanent 6 foot wide attached sidewalk.
D. The Request for a Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.1l (C)(1) of the LUC based on the
Project Development Plan as submitted, is being justified by stating that the design life of
the improvements will not be reduced nor will additional maintenance costs be incurred due
to the granting of the modification. Section 2.8.2(H)(3) of the LUCstates (in part) "That by
reason of extraordinary and exceptional conditions, the strict application of the standard
sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or
exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such
difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act of the Applicant. " The fence posts are
anchored in concrete. However, the nature of the construction of the fence, in its present
location, was caused by the voluntary act ofthe property owner (Applicant). Therefore, staff
has determined that the Requested Modification of the Standard is not supported by the
criteria set forth in Section 2.8.2(H)(3) of the LUC.
E. This request is onlyfor a modification of the specific standard in Subsection 3.8.11(C)(1) of
the LUC. The applicant has submitted a PDP proposal for review by the City that is
currently being reviewed by City staff and outside reviewing agencies. A determination of
the PDP will ultimately be made by the Planning and Zoning Board separate from this
request for a modification of standard.
The Board considered the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners and staff and voted
6-1 to deny the Requestfor a Modification of the Standard set forth in Section 3.8.11(C)(1) relating
to the location of the 6 foot high chain link fence along the frontage of the property at 209 East
Skyway Drive.
ALLEGATIONS ONAPPEAL
On August 19, 2008, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's Office from Randy
Whitman, 209 E. Skyway Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80525.
The Appellant alleges that:
The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant portions of
the City Code. In particular, those relating to roads, sidewalks, fencing, setbacks, sight
distance, nonconforming uses and structures.
The Appellant specifically alleges:
"The City is claiming that they have no plan to widen Skyway Drive. Since they are
not going to widen the road, there is no need for a detached sidewalk. "
"The City Engineer stated that she would likely approve a permanent 6 foot wide
attached sidewalk if the fence were allowed to remain in its present location. "
292
December 2, 2008
• "The surrounding neighborhood directly across from my property all has attached
sidewalks. "
• "A decision has not been made yet relating to the sidewalk, which when made could
materially impact the placement of the fence. "
• "The City would allow a 4 foot fence but not a 6 foot fence. For security purposes,
what good is a 4 foot fence and what difference does 2 feet make in the scheme of
things?"
• "If we move the fence back 7 feet, it is okay to be 6 feet. I do not understand the
thinking process related to this fact and the issue mentioned prior. "
• "The cost related to us to move the fence a few feet back and install a detached
sidewalk is considerable. This cost seems to be asking a little much when it does not
seem to be a necessaryfactor, "
QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER
Did the Planning and Zoning Board not properly interpret and apply relevant portions of
the City Code?
STAFF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. Section 3.8.11 Fences and Walls
Section 3.8.11(C)(1), a subsection of Section 3.8.11, states:
"Fences or walls shall be nor more than four (4) feet high between the front building line
and front property line. "
The existing six (6) foot high chain linkfence along the north side of the Whitman property
at 209 East Skyway Drive is located approximately 33 feet north of the closest building face
on -site and is essentially right on the property line.
Responses to the Appellant's specific points of contention are:
Appellant's Statement: The City is claiming that they have no plan to widen Skyway Drive.
Since they are not going to widen the road, there is no need for a detached sidewalk.
Staffs response: The City does not have plans to widen Skyway Drive; however, the
Lorimer County Urban Area Street Standards do require detached sidewalks in all locations
as part of development or redevelopment proposals. The requirement is primarily for
pedestrian safety reasons, although streetscape and snow removal issues are also
considered.
293
December 2, 2008
Appellant's Statement: The City Engineer stated that she would likely approve a permanent
6 foot wide attached sidewalk if the fence were allowed to remain in its present location.
Staffs Response: Thispointis moot because the Planning and Zoning Board denied the
Appellant's request for the fence to remain in its present location.
Appellant's Statement: The surrounding neighborhood directly across from my property all
has attached sidewalks.
Staff's Response: There are attached sidewalks in the surrounding neighborhood that
were approved and constructed underprevious codes and standards. This does not exempt
the Appellant, as part of his development proposal, from complying with current standards.
Appellant's Statement: A decision has not been madeyet relating to the sidewalk, which when
made could materially impact the placement of the fence.
Staffs Response: The current standard for sidewalk location and alignment is to be
detached a distance of 6 feet from the back of curb along East Skyway Drive. The placement
ofthefence was determined by the Planning and Zoning Board with their denial to allow the
6 foot high fence to remain in its present location. Therefore, the fence and sidewalk
locations must comply with the standards set forth in the Land Use Code.
Appellant's Statement: The City would allowa 4footfence but not a 6footfence. For security
purposes, what good is a 4 foot fence and what difference does 2 feet make in the scheme of things?
Staff's Response: A 4 foot high fence would be allowed in the present location of the 6
foot high fence. To comply with Section 3.8. 1 I(C)(1), if the Appellant needs the 6 foot high
fence for securitypurposes it must be moved back to align with the north buildingface of the
existing repair shop.
Appellant's Statement: If we move the fence back 7 feet, it is okay to be 6 feet. I do not
understand the thinking process related to this fact and the issue mentioned prior.
Staffs Response: This is an incorrect statement. For the fence to be able to remain 6
feet in height it would have to be moved back approximately 33 feet to align with the north
building face of the existing repair shop.
Appellant's Statement: The cost related to us to move the fence a few feet back and install a
detached sidewalk is considerable. This cost seems to be asking a little much when it does not seem
to be a necessaryfactor.
Staffs Response: Staff recognizes costs associated with development and the need to
meet the City's development standards. Compliance with the requirements are consistently
applied and there was no misunderstanding by the Planning and Zoning Board.
294
December 2, 2008
Staff, therefore, finds that the Planning and Zoning Board did not fail to properly interpret and
apply the intent of Section 3.8.11 Fences and Walls in the Land Use Code.
LIST OF RELEVANT CODE PROVISIONS
Section 3.8.11 Fences and Walls
Fences and wall shall meet the following standards:
(A) If used along collector or arterial streets, such features shall be made visually
interesting and shall avoid creating a "tunnel " effect. Compliance with this standard may
be accomplished by integrating architectural elements such as brick or stone columns,
incorporating articulation or openings into the design.
Section 3.8.11(C) Fences and walls shall be:
(1) no more than four (4) feet high between the front building line and front property
line. "
Mayor Hutchinson reminded Council that its decision is to be based upon the record and the relevant
criteria in the City's Land Use Code and the presentation of the parties. It can uphold, overturn or
modify the Board's decision or remand the decision for further consideration of additional issues
raised on appeal.
Steve Olt, City Planner, stated the appellant has requested a modification of standard that requires
fences or walls to be no more than four feet high between the front building line and the front
property line. The existing fence is on the front property line along East Skyway Drive and is a 6-
foot, chain link fence. Staff recommended denial of the request to the Planning and Zoning Board.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if any Councilmember made a site visit and had any relevant observations.
No Councilmember responded.
Randy Whitman, 209 East Skyway, appellant, questioned the requirement to move his fence since
the request to allow outdoor storage was denied. He cannot afford to move the fence.
Rick Zier, 322 East Oak, attorney for the appellant, stated there did not seem to be a rational reason
why a 4-foot fence could be located at the front of the property but a 6-foot fence could not. The
Planning and Zoning Board discussion concerned City standards that require a detached sidewalk
and the fence will not allow for a detached sidewalk. The height of the fence is immaterial.
Brian Schumm, 7203 Woodrow Drive, stated both the County and the City have the same street
standards and the appellant did not coordinate with either entity when he built his fence. The fence
is located in the area that needs to be developed to the current street standards. The fence impacts
the placement of the sidewalk. The City's standards should be upheld and an exception should not
be granted.
295
December 2, 2008
Mr. Whitman stated his fence was approved by the County and does meet the County's standards.
The annexation of his property into the City has forced this issue.
Mr. Schumm stated the property has been rezoned and the City should enforce the standards in the
Land Use Code and the street standards which require the fence to be brought into compliance. Mr.
Whitman wants to further develop his property and this development requires that his property be
brought into compliance with the Code. If he made no changes, his fence would be grandfathered
in and allowed to stay.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if staff recommended denial of the modification of standard to the
Planning and Zoning Board and if staff still recommended denial. Olt stated staff did recommend
denial of the request and the Board voted to deny the request. A recommendation of denial requires
the property to comply with the Land Use Code. Currently, on site, the permitted uses are the
existing residence and the office -retail portion attached to the residential. The repair shop and
storage building were not approved uses for the Commercial zone. They required a development
proposal. With the development proposal, the applicant is subject to the rules, regulations and
requirements of the Code, which include the requirement that a fence in excess of 4 feet in height
be at or behind the front building line and not between the building and the property line, where it
is currently located. Staff believed the Code requirement for fencing and placement of a sidewalk
was appropriate. The Code requires a 5-foot detached sidewalk, separated from the curb by 6 feet.
The fence is approximately I I feet from the curb and does not allow enough space for the sidewalk
to be built. A 2-foot separation must exist between the sidewalk and a fence for safety reasons.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the Whitmans' development proposal is for the addition of
permitted use that Council just denied. Olt stated a third proposal for this site, the Whitman Storage
Facility Project Development Plan, has been submitted that is separate from the addition ofpermitted
use. That Plan has been approved by the Board, with the condition that the fence would be moved
back 2 feet to accommodate a sidewalk.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the fence would remain at 6 feet in height. Olt stated Mr. Whitman
submitted a revised modification of standard that moved the fence enough to allow the detached
sidewalk. The Board approved the modification of standard to allow the 6-foot fence to be moved
13 feet behind the back of curb to allow the detached sidewalk and approved the Project
Development Plan.
Councilmember Troxell asked if the above -ground power lines will be placed underground as a part
of the development. Olt stated the City's Light and Power Utility will remove the poles, meters will
be moved on -site and the power lines will be placed underground.
Councilmember Poppaw made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to uphold the decision
of the Planning and Zoning Board to deny the request for Modification of Standard because the
Board did not fail to properly interpret and apply the provisions of the Land Use Code in its denial.
Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
We
December 2, 2008
Items Relating to the Reappointment, Contract, and
Compensation of the Municipal Judge, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2008-124 Reappointing Kathleen M. Lane as Municipal Judge and Authorizing
the Eighth Addendum to the Judge's Employment Agreement.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 2008, Amending Section 2-606 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the Municipal Judge.
Resolution 2008-124reappoints Judge Laneforanother two-year term to expire December 31, 2010
and authorizes the Mayor to execute an addendum to the Judge's employment agreement to reflect
the change in term. The Resolution also increases Judge Lane's annual vacation leavefrom 26 days
to 30 days and changes the vacation accrual provision to reflect that there may be a different
number of bi-weekly pay periods in any calendar year.
Ordinance No. 157, 2008, establishes the 2009 salary of the Municipal Judge.
BACKGROUND
Article V11, Section I of the Charterprovides that the Municipal Judge is to be appointed for a term
of two years. Kathleen M Lane was first appointed to serve as the City's Municipal Judge effective
July 1, 1989. Resolution 2006-127 reappointed Judge Lane for a two-year term ending on
December 31, 2008. Resolution 2008-124 reappoints Judge Lane for another two-year term to
expire December 31, 2010 and authorizes the Mayor to execute an addendum to the Judge's
employment agreement to reflect her new term of office and to state that her accrued vacation will
be prorated according to the number of bi-weekly pay periods in any calendar year.
City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and
understandable. The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to
recognize and reward quality performance. In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and
the Municipal Judge meet twice a year to discuss performance and set goals for the coming year.
In 2008, the total compensation paid to the Municipal Judge included the following:
297
December 2, 2008
2008 SALARY AND BENEFITS
ANNUAL
NON -MONETARY BENEFITS
Salary (0.8 FIE)
$ 86,958
Vacation (26 days per year)
Medical Insurance
9,240
Holidays (11 days per year)
Dentallnsurance
600
Life Insurance
251
Long Term Disability
687
1CMA (457)
2,609
ICMA (401)
8,696
Total Monetary Compensation
$ 109,040
The resolution establishing the process for evaluating the performance of the City Manager, City
Attorney, and Municipal Judge, states that any change in compensation for the CityManager, City
Attorney and Municipal Judge will be adopted by the Council by ordinance insufficient time for the
change in compensation to take effect as of the first full pay period of the ensuing year. The
Ordinance will amend the City Code to reflect Judge Lane's 2009 salary. "
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2008-124.
Councilmember Roy expressed his thanks to Judge Lane for her management of the Municipal
Court.
Mayor Hutchinson stated a judicial oversight committee has been established that has allowed
Council to be more involved in overseeing the Municipal Court. Judge Lane has shown excellent
judicial and administrative skills in her management of the Court and her communication with the
committee.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No.
157, 2008, setting the base salary of the Municipal Judge at $93,045 and the total compensation at
$115,987.
Councilmember Poppaw stated Judge Lane, City Attorney Roy and City Manager Atteberry do a
phenomenal job for the City and she had no complaints about their job performances. She did not
support any employee receiving a 7 or 8% salary increase in these uncertain financial times.
Councilmember Manvel stated the salary increases are based on the policy set by the City to bring
all positions in the City up to market value. The appropriate local, state or national job market was
reviewed to determine if the City was paying a fair market value for the position. It was determined
December 2, 2008
the City was paying below market value for the positions of City Manager, City Attorney and
Municipal Judge.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the City's policy is to pay employees at or above the average market
salary. These three direct employees have received stellar evaluations but are paid below or just at
average market pay. The proposed raises will bring these employees up to slightly above the average
market pay.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the City has a policy of paying employees at least an average salary and
Council made the commitment last year to bring the Municipal Judge, City Attorney and City
Manager to an average market salary, based on considerable data gathered from around the country
from comparable cities.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Troxell. Nays:
Poppaw.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
First Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 2008,
Amending Section 2-581 of the City Code and Setting the Salary
of the City Attorney., Adopted on First Reading
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council met in Executive Session on November 18 and November 25, 2008 to conduct the
performance review of City Attorney Steve Roy. Ordinance No. 158, 2008, establishes the 2009
salary of the City Attorney.
BACKGROUND
City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and
understandable. The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to
recognize and reward quality performance.
In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and the CityAttorney meet twice a year to discuss
performance and set goals for the coming year.
In 2008, the total compensation paid to the City Attorney included the following:
299
December 2, 2008
2008 SALARY AND BENEFITS
ANNUAL
NON -MONETARY BENEFITS
Salary
$ 152,500
Vacation (35 days per year)
Medical Insurance
9,240
Holidays (11 days per year)
Dental Insurance
600
Life Insurance
441
Long Term Disability
1,205
ICMA (457)
4,575
ICMA (401)
151250
Total Monetary Compensation
$183,810
The resolution establishing the process for evaluating the performance of the City Manager, City
Attorney, and Municipal Judge states that any change in compensation for the City Manager, City
Attorney and Municipal Judge will be adopted by the Council by ordinance in sufficient time for the
change in compensation to take effect as of the first full pay period of the ensuing year.
Ordinance No. 158, 2008, establishes the 2009 salary of the City Attorney. "
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No.
158, 2008, setting the base salary of the City Attorney at $161,650 and the total compensation al
$194,294.
Councilmember Roy expressed his gratitude to City Attorney Roy for his representation of the City
and his high level of integrity and work.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the salary increase will put the City Attorney at slightly above market
average. City Attorney Roy has been a tremendous asset to the City and Council.
Councilmember Troxell thanked City Attorney Roy forhis excellent work and he noted the proposed
salary is at a fair and competitive rate.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Troxell. Nays:
Poppaw.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Contract and Compensation of
the City Manager, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
300
December 2, 2008
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2008-126 Approving a First Addendum to the City Manager's Employment
Agreement.
B. First Reading of Ordinance 159, 2008, Amending Section 2-596 of the City Code and Setting
the Salary of the City Manager_
City Council met in executive session on November 18 and November 25, 2008 to conduct the
performance review of City Manager Darin Atteberry. Ordinance No. 159, 2008, establishes the
salary of the City Manager.
BACKGROUND
City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and
understandable. The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to
recognize and reward quality performance.
In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and the CityManager meet twice a year to discuss
performance and set goats for the coming year.
In 2008, the total compensation paid to the City Manager included the following:
BACKGROUND
City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and
understandable. The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to
recognize and reward quality performance.
In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and the CityManager meet twice a year to discuss
performance and set goals for the coming year.
In 2008, the total compensation paid to the City Manager included the,following:
2008 SALARYAND BENEFITS
ANNUAL
NON -MONETARY BENEFITS
Salary
S 176,455
Vacation (30 days per year)
Medical Insurance
9,240
Holidays (11 days per year)
Dental Insurance
600
Life Insurance
510
Long Term Disability
1,394
ICMA (457)
5,294
ICMA (401)
17,646
Car Allowance
9,000
Total Monetary Compensation
S 220,138
301
December 2, 2008
The resolution establishing the process for evaluating the performance of the City Manager, City
Attorney, and Municipal Judge states that any change in compensation for the City Manager, City
Attorney and Municipal Judge will be adopted by the Council by ordinance insufficient time for the
change in compensation to take effect as of the first full pay period of the ensuing year.
Ordinance No. 159, 2008, will establish the 2009 salary of the City Manager. In addition, the
Council has agreed to consideramendments to the City Manager's employment contract that would:
• increase the amount ofannual vacation leave that can be converted to cash in a particular year
from 80 hours to 120 hours (without increasing the amount of annual vacation leave);
• state that the City Manager's rate of vacation accrual will be pro -rated on a bi-weekly basis
in accordance with the number ofpay periods in each year;
• clarify that the City Manager's service as a member of the board of directors of community
organizations will be considered to be within the performance of his duties to the City; and
• clarify that, except as otherwise provided in the Employment Agreement, all benefits and
working conditions that apply to service area directors of the City shall apply to the City
Manager as well.
Resolution 2008-126 would approve these changes. "
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution
2008-126.
Mayor Hutchinson noted a complex process was used to determine the City Manager's average
market salary. Comparable cities with unique challenges, such as the presence of a university in the
city, were used in the survey. Council made a commitment last year to bring the City Manager's
salary up to average market value over a three year period because his salary was 20% below
average. City Manager Atteberry is a tremendous public servant and has managed the City and its
resources in a remarkable way, including presenting Council with a budget adjustment for 2009 that
puts $5 million into the City's reserves.
Councilmember Ohlson stated City Manager Atteberryhas updated many City policies and managed
the City in an admirable way, always with total integrity.
Councilmember Manvel thanked the City Manager, City Attorney and the Municipal Judge for their
performances.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Troxell. Nays:
Poppaw.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
302
December 2, 2008
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No.
159, 2008 and set the base salary of the City Manager at $190,571 and the total compensation at
$236,241.
Council thanked City Manager Atteberry for his willingness to work diligently and with integrity and
for his commitment to the City.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Troxell. Nays:
Poppaw.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adjourn to Tuesday,
December 9, 2008 at the conclusion of the work session for possible additional business. Yeas:
Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 12:35 a.m.
ATTEST:
Adjournment
303