HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-01/15/1991-RegularJanuary 15, 1991
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Proclamations and Presentations - 6:15 p.m.
a. Proclamation Naming February 2, as Ram Victory Day, was presented to Oval
Jaynes.
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday,
January 15, 1991, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City of Fort
Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers:
Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur.
Staff Members Present: Burkett, Krajicek, Roy.
*Secretary's Note: Mayor Kirkpatrick left the meeting at 7:05 p.m.
Citizen Participation
Beatriz Alonzo, 2630 Brookwood Drive, requested access to a complaint that was
filed against her, and inquired as to who owns the City streets. Ms. Alonzo
stated she was pleased so many people appeared for citizen participation.
Rick Schroeder, a Fort Skate supporter, stated that financial difficulties
threaten to hamper the continued operation of Fort Skate and encouraged Council
and the Parks and Recreation Department to develop a creative solution for a
skating facility. Mr. Schroeder spoke in support of the Middle East Peace
Initiative.
Christine O'Neill, a Fort Skate supporter, read a letter from a member of the
Downtown Business Association that urged Council to explore options available
to keep Fort Skate open.
Debbie Orr, a local teacher and supporter of Fort Skate, stated she would like
to see Fort Skate remain open.
Vicki Brinkley, a Longmont resident, stated there are numerous families in the
Longmont area that support Fort Skate and said the facility provides a safe,
healthy and drug free environment for youth.
Troy Brinkley, a Longmont resident, supported Fort Skate and said that it is a
positive atmosphere for young people and would like to see the Parks and
Recreation Department assist in ownership.
1
0
January 15, 1991 t
Bev Atchison, supporter of Fort Skate, noted Fort Skate has 1800 members and is
the only Skate Park in Colorado. She encouraged Council to examine it as a
possible revenue source.
Joe Stern, 1221 Laporte Avenue, Middle East Peace Initiative supporter, stated
the Middle East Peace Initiative petition has been circulated and after
certification by the City Clerk's office, it will be submitted for placement on
the February 5 Agenda.
Jane Everham, 3465 Lochwood Drive, supported the Middle East Peace Initiative
and urged the Council to act on the matter immediately.
Jim Wade, a Fort Collins resident, spoke in oppositon to the Middle East Peace
Initiative.
Yolanda C. Nicely, 1625 Crestmore Place, opposed the Initiative and urged Council
to reject the petition and support the United States.
Dr. Peter Poses, 1800 Sheeley Drive, read a article outlining the cost of war
as it relates to Colorado.
Campbell Curley, 2190 W. Drake, stated she supported the Peace Initiative.
Rosalind Lagerstrom, supported the Middle East Peace Initiative.
Mary Bates, 609 Duke Lane, spoke in support of the Initiative.
Chris Gallagher, 925 Columbia Road, opposed the Initiative and stated it is not
fair to ask a City Council to adopt a Resolution that does not represent the
diverse views of the citizens of Fort Collins.
Agenda Review
City Manager Steve Burkett stated there were no changes to the agenda as
published.
Consent Calendar
This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy
on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the
Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar to be "pulled"
off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from
the Consent Calendar will be considered separately under Agenda Item #34, Pulled
Consent Items.
2
January 15, 1991
12. Postponing of Consideration of Items Pertaining to the Burns Annexation
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 80, 1990, Annexing Approximately 46
Acres, Known as the Burns Annexation.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 81, 1990, Zoning Approximately 46
Acres, Known as the Burns Annexation, into the R-F, Foothills
Residential, Zoning District.
On July 17, Council unanimously adopted Resolution 90-105 Setting Forth
Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Burns Annexation and
Zoning.
On July 17, Council also unanimously adopted on First Reading Ordinance
No. 80, 1990 and Ordinance No. 81, 1990, which annex and zone approximately
45.65 acres located west of Overland Trail and south of Drake Road
(extended). The requested zoning is the R-F, Foothills Residential
District. The property is largely undeveloped, two single-family
residences are located on the property. The property is currently zoned
FA-1, Farming in the County. This is a voluntary annexation.
At the request of the applicant, consideration of the annexation was
postponed to this date. The applicant is requesting that the Burns
Annexation and Zoning be postponed to February 5. Adoption of the Consent
Calendar will postpone consideration of this item until February 5.
13. Items Pertaining to the Galatia Annexation and Zoning.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 1990, Annexing Property Known
as the Galatia Annexation.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 132, 1990, Amending Chapter 29 of
the Code of the City of Fort Collins, Commonly Known as the Zoning
Ordinance, and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included
in the Galatia Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
On December 18, Council unanimously adopted Resolution 90-165 Setting
Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Galatia Annexation.
On December 18, Council also unanimously adopted on First Reading Ordinance
No. 131, 1990 and Ordinance No. 132, 1990 which annex and zone
approximately 235.5 acres located north of East Prospect Road and east of
Interstate 25. Ordinance No. 132, 1990 was amended on First Reading to
zone the property as follows: HB, Highway Business (28.0 acres); and IP,
Industrial Park (91.9 acres), to the north and east of the interchange
area; RLP, Low Density Planned Residential (115.6 acres) on the eastern
' part of the property and the central portion of the property. The zonings
carry a PUD condition and the RLP zoning is conditioned upon development
14.
15.
January 15, 1991
only as single-family dwellings with 1 unit per gross acre maximum density.
The property is presently, for the most part, undeveloped, with the
exception of a new residence at the far southeast corner of the property
and a few older residential and farm structures located along the frontage
road of I-25. The property is currently zoned FA-1 Farming in Larimer
County. This is a voluntary annexation.
APPLICANT: Pavlakis Realty OWNERS: Galatia Partnership
c/o Cityscape Urban Design c/o George Pavlakis
3030 S. College -Ave N200 5670 E. Evans Ave.
Ft. Collins, CO 80525 Denver, CO 80222
The Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December
18, revises the provisions of the City Code pertaining to the procedure
for appeals heard by City Council by permitting rebuttal presentations to
be made by parties -in -interest.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 1990, Amending Chapter 12,
Article II of the Code Relating to Garbage and Refuse.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 1990, Amending Chapter 20 of
the Code Relating to Weeds, Brush and Rubbish.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 1990 Amending Chapter 24,
Article II of the Code Relating to Sidewalks.
These ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on December
18. There are three substantive changes proposed, which will affect the
way in which the Code is administered.
1) In all three chapters, the administrative fee added to weed, rubbish,
and sidewalk snow abatement bills will increase from 10% to 20%. This
increase will allow the City to more fully recover the cost of abatement.
2) An appeals procedure will be added to Chapters 12, 20, and 24. This
will allow property owners who received an abatement bill for weeds,
rubbish, or sidewalk snow to appeal the bill to the Oirector of Utility
Services, or his designee.
4
1
January 15, 1991
3) A new article will be added to Chapter 20, making it illegal for
business owners to put snow from private lots into the public right-of-
way. When snow is pushed off business parking lots into the public right-
of-way, a hazard for pedestrians and motorists can be created.
In addition, there are a few minor changes to Chapter 12, 20, and 24,
which will clarify the ordinances, but not change the way these programs
are administered.
16. Items Relating to Authorizing Agreements for the Collindale and City Park
Nine Golf Courses Golf Professionals for Terms Up to Five Years.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 1990, Authorizing an Agreement
with Joseph W. Nance to Provide Golf Professional and Concession
Services at Collindale Golf Course for a Term of up to Five Years.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 1990, Authorizing an Agreement
with James H. Greer to Provide Golf Professional and Concession
Services at City Park Nine Golf Course for a Term of up to Five
Years.
Existing agreements with Collindale Golf Professional Bill Metier and City
' Park Nine Golf Professional Jim Greer will expire on January 31, 1991.
In prior years, the City has negotiated periodic contracts of one -to -three
years in length for Collindale and City Park Nine with the golf
professionals serving as independent contractors. A Request for Proposal
package was prepared for both Collindale and City Park Nine golf
professionals for 1991, with annual renewal options for the years 1992
through 1995 (if desired by both parties). After thorough review of the
proposals submitted, staff and the Golf Board recommend Council approval
of these two agreements with Joseph W. Nance at Collindale and James H.
Greer at City Park Nine for terms of up to five years. These ordinances,
which were unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 18, authorize
the agreements with Joseph W. Nance and James H. Greer.
17. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 147, 1990, Amending Section 26-128 of the
Code Regarding Water Plant Investment Fees.
On February 20, 1990, City Council adopted Resolution 90-24 establishing
the Water Demand Management Committee and appointing three members to
serve along with representatives of the Water Board. The purpose of the
Committee was to develop a plan for implementing the installation of meters
and to consider other demand management policies. On November 20th City
Council adopted a Resolution endorsing the findings of the Water Demand
Management Committee with regard to metering. The Resolution stated that
an increase in the Water Plant Investment Fee would be brought to Council
for implementation in January 1991. PIFs are intended to recover the
' actual cost of providing the treatment and distribution system capacity
5
Ila
19.
January 15, 1991 '
that will be used by each new customer. This Ordinance, which was
unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 18, increases the Water
PIFs. The Committee will continue to meet to develop recommendations to
improve the rate structure for flat rate customers and to consider other
demand management policies.
On June 5, 1990, the Council authorized Resolution 90-74 approving the
purchase of land for the proposed future regional wastewater treatment
plant. The purchase consisted of 160 acres approximately two miles east
of I-25 along the Poudre River adjacent to Ptarmigan Golf Course. The
City owns the mineral rights for the 100 acres west of the river.
Recently, the City has been approached by a representative of Vantage
Resources Company, an agent for Bright & Company, concerning the possible
lease of oil and gas rights on the property. The proposed lease provides
for a 13% royalty, no surface occupancy without written consent,
indemnification of liability, a shut-in gas provision of five years, and
a lump sum payment of $40 per acre for the lease of 100 net acres of the
parcel.
The lease is on a standard "Producers 88" form, which is the most commonly
used form of oil and gas lease. This Ordinance, which was adopted
unanimously on First Reading on December 18, authorizes the lease.
In 1988, Vipont purchased Lot 8 of the Prospect Park East P.U.D.
subdivision zoned I-L, Limited Industrial (northerly portion). At the
same time, Vipont purchased Lots 1, 2, and part of 23 of the Prospect
Industrial Park subdivision zoned I-G, General Industrial (southerly
portion). These lots, from two previously platted subdivisions, were
consolidated into one building lot for the existing Vipont Manufacturing
Facility located on the northern portion. Although a new, single lot was
created, the zone district line still bisects the parcel.
Vipont has voluntarily petitioned the City to rezone the I-G, General
Industrial, portion of the parcel into I-L, Limited Industrial. A
potential, attached building expansion would cross the current zone
district line. In order to avoid seeking variances from the Zoning Board
of Appeals from minimum setbacks, and to simplify future expansion plans, '
6
I
January 15, 1991
the rezoning seeks to place the entire Vipont parcel under one, uniform,
zone district: I-L, Limited Industrial.
ME
This ordinance appropriates prior year reserves to fund replacement of
3100 lineal feet of the 24 inch Lincoln Street Interceptor along the Poudre
River. The 1990 budget originally scheduled the design of this project
for 1991 with construction to begin in 1992.
After a heavy rainfall last spring, a break occurred in the interceptor
located in the embankment of the Poudre River. The pipe had been exposed
from erosion, and concrete blocks used for bank stabilization had washed
down the embankment and broken the pipe. Wastewater Utility crews were
able to temporarily patch the line but it is imperative that .the
replacement be completed before the 1991 runoff.
21.
Requirements of the Water Utility.
' The proposed ordinance will increase the cash rate charged developers for
satisfaction of raw water requirements from $1,300 to $1,500 per acre foot.
The cash rate is adjusted periodically to reflect the current price of raw
water.
22.
Platte River Power Authority has requested a 15-foot access easement from
the City to access its electrical transmission line in the SouthRidge
Greens P.U.D. Phase I. A more generalized location for this access
easement would be on the south side of the Number 7 green at the SouthRidge
Golf Course. There is no impact on play on the golf course as the land
in question is all unimproved "rough" area, nor will there be any
noticeable impact to adjacent homeowners as a result of this access
easement. Platte River Power Authority will fully restore any damage to
the golf course which could result by its usage of the easement. The Golf
Board, at its special meeting of December 10, 1990, voted unanimously (7:0)
to approve this access easement and recommend the same to City Council.
Granting of this easement should be of no consequence to any potential sale
of the SouthRidge Golf Course.
23.
24.
25.
January 15, 1991
Larimer County has scheduled the reconstruction of Centennial Drive Road
to begin in 1991. The project will be staged/constructed over several
years with the northern portion being first. This work will involve some
realignment, widening the roadway to thirty feet, installing drainage
culverts and surfacing with a seal and chip coat. The roadway will have
an asphalt mat surface placed when more funds are available.
The planned work will impact on the City's Reservoir Ridge and Campeau
Open Spaces. Additional rights -of -way will be required at three locations
to accommodate the widened road.
The new road will slightly improve access into the Campeau Trailhead by
decreasing the approach grades. The existing property fence at each right-
of-way location will be adjusted to the new right-of-way line and all
disturbed areas will be seeded. Signs will be installed to inform
Foothills Trail users of construction activities where the trail crosses
Centennial Drive Road.
Resolution 91-1 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter Into an Agreement with the I
State Board of Agriculture, by and Through the Executive Branch of the
Associated Students of Colorado State University, for the Purpose of
Providing Transit Services.
Transfort begins the implementation of the Transit Development Program
1991-1995 (TDP) and Campus Transit Plan 1991-1995 this year. As a part
of that effort, service to the central campus will be improved beginning
in August. This agreement continues the financial formula used in the past
($3.60 per student per semester), but sets the stage for the City and
ASCSU to work directly on service refinements, planning, and the
preparation for a student fee referendum in the spring of 1992.
Care -A -Van, Inc., provides transportation services to disabled, elderly,
and economically disadvantaged persons, including the operation of the
SAINT Program. This service compliments the City Transfort system. This
contract provides support funding in the amount of $150,500. Of the total
contribution, $10,500 will be paid from the General Fund and $140,000 is
federal operating grant funds the City has allocated for this type of
service within the urbanized area of Fort Collins.
I]
January 15, 1991
I
In October,
1990, competitive
proposals for paratransit services were
solicited.
Care -A -Van provided the only proposal. Based upon Care-A-
Van's 1991
projected cost per
trip of $ 4.75 and contractual matching
requirements, the City expects
58,248 trips will be provided.
26. Resolution
91-3 Authorizing the
Lease of Office, Shoo, and Storage Space
at the City's
Transit Facility
at 6570 Portner Road to Care -A -Van, Inc.,
in Support
of the Provision of
Transportation Services to the Community.
The City and Care -A -Van, Inc. have occupied the City's Transit Facility
since it opened in 1984. This lease continues the arrangement which has
been in place for some time by providing office (1,850 square feet), shop,
and storage (17,550 square feet) space for the Care -A -Van operation at the
City's Transit Facility at 6570 Portner Road. The City will receive rent
as well as financial support for the building from Care -A -Van, Inc.
27. Resolution 91-4 Adopting an Updated Transit Development Program (TDP) for
Calendar Year 1991.
Each year the city is required to update its five-year plan (TDP) for
transit services in Fort Collins. This update includes the service changes
and route restructuring approved by Council during the 1991 budget process.
' This restructuring will take place in two phases: one in January for four
general city routes and the other in August for routes with a CSU emphasis.
This update reflects the modest increase in paratransit services to seniors
and the disabled. The update also includes reference to an upgrade of the
fuel site at Transfort and identifies the need to replace nine transit
coaches in the future.
28. Resolution 91-5 Authorizing the Creation of a New Assistant City Attorney
Position.
The City Charter requires that Council approve the creation of any new
Deputy or Assistant City Attorney positions. In allocating the resources
approved in the 1991 budget for personal services in the City Attorney's
office, the City Attorney is recommending the creation of a new Assistant
City Attorney position. Approval of the position by Council would not
necessitate any additional funding for 1991. Maintenance of the new
position on a full-time basis in future years would require additional
funding.
29. Resolution 91-6 Setting the Compensation for Municipal Election Judges.
Compensation for municipal election judges has not increased since 1982.
The recommended increase would change the compensation for the 66 supply
judges from $54 to $60, while the 132 regular judges would receive an
increase in compensation from $50 to $55. The recommended compensation
30.
January 15, 1991 '
rates are in line with compensation paid by Larimer County to judges at
General and Primary Elections.
Supply judges receive greater compensation because they are asked to post
election notices and are required to pick up and return election ballots
and supplies.
The City of Fort Collins is a member city of the National League of Cities,
which addresses the immediate and long term concerns of city officials and
urban citizens.
A. Resolution 91-7 Approving and Endorsing the Nomination of Gerry
Horak to the Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources Steering
Committee of the NLC.
Councilmember Gerry Horak has served on the NLC Policy Committee on Energy,
Environment, and Natural Resources. This Resolution would support his
nomination and continued membership on the NLC Energy, Environment, and
Natural Resources Steering Committee, which is responsible for drafting '
policy statements for presentation to the counterpart Policy Committee.
B. Resolution 91-8 Approving and Endorsing the Nomination of Loren
Maxey to the Transportation and Communication Steering Committee of
the NLC.
Councilmember Loren Maxey has served on the NLC Policy Committee on
Transportation and Communications. This Resolution would support his
nomination to the NLC Transportation and Communications Steering Committee,
which is responsible for drafting policy statements for presentation to
the counterpart Policy Committee.
C. Resolution 91-9 Approving and Endorsing the Nomination of Ann Azari
to the Human Development Steering Committee of the NLC.
Councilmember Ann Azari has expressed interest in serving on the NLC
Steering Committee on Human Development. This Resolution would support
her nomination to the NLC Human Development Steering Committee, which is
responsible for drafting policy statements for presentation to the
counterpart Policy Committee.
31. Resolution 91-10 Making an Appointment to the Election Board.
A vacancy currently exists on the Election Board due to the resignation
of Elaine Dobler. I
10
J
January 15, 1991.
Councilmembers Winokur and Horak conducted interviews on January 7 and
are recommending that LaVerna Barnhart be appointed to fill the vacant
term which expires July 1, 1993.
32. Resolution 91-
A vacancy currently exists on the Natural Resources Advisory Board due to
the resignation of Joyce Berry.
Councilmember Winokur, as liaison to the Natural Resources Advisory Board,
is recommending that the current alternate, Christine Ferguson, be
appointed to fill this vacancy, which expires July 1, 1994.
33. Routine Deeds and Easements.
a. Deed of easement from Hubert J. Gilmartin, Florence R. Gilmartin
and Keith J. Gilmartin for right-of-way needed for the extension of
West Vine Drive to the leased site of the Poudre Fire Authority
training facility west of Overland Trail. Monetary consideration:
$4,669 (based on $6,000/acre).
b. Powerline easement from Dennis Matsumoto and Georgia Cheryl
Matsumoto, 500 E. Stuart, needed to install electric oval vault to
underground existing overhead electric system. Monetary
consideration: $60. ($2/sq. ft.)
C. Powerline easement from Fred R. McClanahan and Dorothy L. McClanahan,
located west of 5001 S. College, needed for an electric trench to
underground electric services in area. Monetary consideration:
$1,676.64 ($1/sq. ft.)
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk.
Item #13. Items Pertaining to the Galatia Annexation and Zoning.
A.
L:M
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 1990, Annexing Property
Known as the Galatia Annexation.
Item #14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 1990, Amending the Code
Pertaining to Council Appeals..
11
January 15, 1991 ,
Item #15.
Item #16.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 1990, Authorizing an
Item #17.
Item #18. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 1990, Authorizing the Mayor to
Enter Into an Oil and Gas Lease with Bright and Company. ,
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk.
Item #19.
Item #20.
Item #21.
Item #22.
Item #23
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 6, 1991, Authorizing the
Conveyance of Real Prooerty from the -City of Fort Collins to Larimer
County. '
12
Item #37.
Item #38.
Item #39.
Item #40. A.
up to Five Years.
January 15, 1991
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to adopt and
approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Horak, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Edwards as Council designee to the Colorado Municipal League Policy
Committee reported he would not be able to attend the February 1 meeting and
inquired if another Councilmember would volunteer to serve in that capacity for
him.
Councilmember Maxey informed Council that he will raise closure of the noise
ordinance under Other Business which is the last item on the agenda.
Ordinance No. 145, 1990, Amending
Chapter 29 of the Code of the City
of Fort Collins Relating to Off -Premise
Signs, Adopted as Amended on First Reading
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On December 18, consideration of this item was postponed to this date because
of the lateness of the hour.
On August 21, 1990 the City Council imposed a 180 day moratorium on the erection
or construction of off -premise signs, except such signs which carry only
13
January 15, 1991 '
ideological or political messages. This moratorium ordinance was adopted in
response to concerns about the prominence of newly constructed billboards, the
continued proliferation of such off -premise signs and their aesthetic impact on
the community. The ordinance directed City staff to work with the regulated sign
industry and the citizens of the City in order to address these concerns and
develop and present to City Council a proposed ordinance regulating such signs.
Staff has met with representatives of the four major off -premise sign companies
on three occasions, and additionally has held two public forums which were open
to the community. This proce;s has resulted in the formulation of three
different options to deal with this issue. Option A would continue to allow the
construction of new off -premise signs, but they would be subject to stricter
regulations. This option is recommended by members of the sign industry.
Option B would create a "Cap and Replacement" ordinance. It is also recommended
by members of the sign industry. This places a temporary prohibition on the
construction of new off -premise signs which would last either four years or until
the inventory of existing off -premise signs has been reduced by 10%, whichever
event occurs first. Signs which are removed during the prohibition period would
not be allowed to be replaced. Once the temporary prohibition expires, the
maximum number of off -premise signs which can be in place at any one time would
be limited to the number which exists at the end of the prohibition period. When
this new "cap" has been established this option would allow a one -for -one
replacement, meaning that a new off -premise sign could be constructed in the City '
when an existing one is removed. Option C, which is recommended by staff, would
prohibit the construction of any new off -premise signs with the exception of
those which display only ideological or political messages.
BACKGROUND:
The comprehensive Sign Code was adopted in 1971 as an element of the City Zoning
Code. In its original form it did not allow off -premise signs. The Council
amended the Code in 1979 to allow off -premise signs due to case law which brought
into doubt the legality of prohibiting the off -premise sign industry from
operating in Fort Collins.
The amended Code allowed off -premise signs, with the only requirement for such
signs being that they comply with the same regulations pertaining to on -premise
signs._. The code amendment also provided for a 5-year amortization period for
all existing off -premise signs which did not comply with the regulations
pertaining to size, height and location. These signs had to be removed by 1984.
However, the sign companies which own the nonconforming billboards did not remove
them, and instead filed suit against the City claiming that if the City wanted
the signs down then Federal and State laws required the City to pay compensation.
A recent Colorado Supreme Court ruling on this suit upheld the sign companies'
position and prohibited the enforcement of the amortization provisions as to
signs within 660 feet of a federally funded highway. .
14
January 15, 1991
From 1979, when off -premise signs were first permitted, until about 1985, most
of the signs were erected by developers and advertised their various residential
subdivisions. Then in 1985, sign companies began to erect signs and they more
closely resembled the typical billboard by displaying changeable -copy commercial
messages. Most of the developer signs have been removed and replaced with the
more traditional billboard. These off -premise signs generally are removed only
when the property develops and it becomes necessary to erect a permanent
on -premise sign for the new development.
Historically, only about 10 perm"ts a year are issued for new off -premise signs,
but existing ones do not come down at a comparable rate. Therefore, the number
of such signs has been increasing. According to City records, thirty-one (31)
off -premise signs existed within the city in January of 1985. Today there are
ninety (90) such signs. Concerns have been raised about the proliferation of
these signs and, particularly, about the appearance and location of several new
off -premise signs.
Three options have been developed by staff, working with citizens and the sign
industry. Each option represents different methods of regulating off -premise
signs in order to address the issue. Options A and B have the support of the
off -premise sign industry, while Option C is supported by the Development
Services staff. Option C is the same option presented to City Council on August
' 7, 1990.
Staff has placed each option in the form of an ordinance to facilitate City
Council discussion and direction concerning this issue.
OPTION A - STRICTER DESIGN AND LOCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS:
This amends the current section which allows off -premise signs. At present,
such signs must comply with the same regulations which apply to on -premise signs.
The proposal would continue to allow off -premise signs but they would be subject
to stricter regulations as presented below. The following Code provisions would
be added in order to accomplish this:
1. A minimum setback of fifteen (15) feet from the street right-of-way line
would be required for any sign which does not exceed fifty-five (55) square
feet per face. A sign which exceeds fifty-five square feet per face would
have to be setback a minimum of thirty (30) feet from the right-of-way
line. The current code allows a minimum setback of zero (0) feet in many
cases, irrespective of size.
2. The maximum size allowed would be fifty-five (55) square feet per face
when setback between 15 feet and 29 feet from the right-of-way line, and
seventy-eight (78) square feet per face when the sign is setback 30 feet
or more. The current code allows a maximum size of one hundred twenty
' (120) square feet per face.
15
January 15, 1991
3. The maximum height for off -premise signs would be 15 feet above grade.
The current code allows a maximum height of 24 feet above grade.
4. A spacing requirement of 300 feet on both sides of an off -premise sign,
measured on one side of the street, would be established.. The current
code requires a 30 foot separation.
5. No sign face can remain blank for more than 60 consecutive days. A sign
face would be considered to be blank if no message whatsoever is displayed
or if the only message is one that displays only the sign owner's name,
telephone number, and/or message indicating the availability of the space
for lease. The current code is silent on this issue.
6. No off -premise sign can contain more than two (2) sign faces. The current
code does not limit the number of sign faces.
OPTION B - CAP AND REPLACEMENT. TEMPORARY PROHIBITION, STRICTER REGULATIONS:
Members of the regulated sign industry met on December 6, 1990 and proposed that
two provisions of Option B.be modified from what was presented to the Planning
and Zoning Board on November 19, 1990. The first change alters the terms of the
moratorium in an effort to assure that a more meaningful reduction in the number
of signs occurs. The original proposal included a one year moratorium, whereas '
the new proposal requires that a temporary prohibition be placed on the
construction of new off -premise signs, except for off -premise ideological and
election signs. This prohibition would last four years or until the number of
existing off -premise signs is reduced by IOY, whichever occurs first. The second
change to Option B is with respect to the spacing requirement included in the
stricter regulations which would apply to future replacement signs. As
originally proposed, the spacing requirement found in Option A would apply,
meaning that new off -premise signs would have to be at least 300 feet from an
existing off -premise sign, with this distance applying only to signs on the same
side of the same street. In order to address concerns that this requirement
would still allow signs on opposite corners of an intersection, the new proposal
would require a radius spacing of 300 feet for signs located on corner lots at
intersections. This would make it very difficult for more than one off -premise
sign to be located at an intersection. When a sign is not located on a corner
lot, the 300 foot spacing requirement would be measured along both sides of the
designated street, thus preventing a sign from being located directly across the
street from another sign.
Specifically then, this option would amend the code by establishing a CAP AND
REPLACEMENT requirement which would go into effect at the end of a temporary
prohibition on the construction of new off -premise signs. The length of this
prohibition would be either four years or until the inventory of existing off -
premise signs has been reduced by 107 (9 signs), whichever occurs first.
16
• January 15, 1991
t
Under this option the prohibition would go into effect on the date the ordinance
becomes effective, and during that period no new off -premise signs could be
constructed. At the end of the prohibition the number of off -premise signs which
would be permitted in the City at any one time would be "capped" at the number
which exists on that date. For example, if there are 90 such signs in existence
today, that number would not be allowed to increase during the temporary
prohibition period. If l0Y of the signs are removed during this time, the number
of signs at the end of the period would be 81. This would become the "cap",
meaning that there could be no more than 81 signs (except that the number can
be increased as a result of the annexation of property which includes off -premise
signs).
Once the temporary prohibition has ended and a new "cap" has been determined,
this option would allow a one -for -one replacement, that is, if an existing off -
premise sign is removed because of a lost lease or development of the lot, a new
sign would be allowed to be constructed somewhere else in the city to replace
it. However, the new sign would have to comply with the stricter spacing
requirements described above and with the other design requirements outlined in
Option A, except that no new sign can be larger than the one it is replacing.
For example, if a 120 square foot per face sign is removed, it can not be
replaced by a sign larger than 78 square feet. If a 60 square foot per face sign
is removed, it can not be replaced with a sign larger than 60 square feet per
' face.
OPTION C - PROHIBIT NEW OFF -PREMISE SIGNS:
This option would amend the Code by prohibiting the construction of new off -
premise signs within the city, except ideological and election signs. Existing
signs would be "grandfathered", primarily because of federal regulations which
require compensation to be paid to the owner of any such signs which exist within
650 feet of a federal aid highway. A recent Colorado Supreme Court ruling does
not allow amortization as an acceptable means of compensation for such signs
within 660 feet of a federal aid highway. Sections 1, 3, and 4 of this option
are also incorporated into options A and B as housekeeping items.
Section I
This adds a definition for "off -premise sign" to the definition section of the
Zoning Code. As proposed, the term would refer to any sign or billboard located
off -premise.
Section 2
This amends
the
current section of the Sign Code which lists the types of
prohibited signs.
The proposal
adds off -premise signs to the list of
prohibited
signs, with
the
exception of
off -premise ideological and election
signs and
'
off -premise
In essence
signs constructed
then, the amendment
prior to the effective date of this
would result in the prohibition of
ordinance.
all future
17
January 15, 1991
off -premise, commercial billboards. They are the most common type of off -premise
sign and are the ones which have raised the concerns previously mentioned.
Ideological and election signs are usually off -premise in nature and are
protected by the First Amendment to a higher degree than signs advertising
commercial messages. Since off -premise advertising may be the only forum
available for the visual conveyance of ideological speech in a manner similar
to the commercial speech provided through on -premise signage, the common law
requires that the City provide for such a forum in order to avoid the creation
of a "chilling effect" on ideological speech, which is afforded the highest
degree of protection under the Bill of Rights.
Based on the Colorado Supreme Court ruling, the City's ability to effectively
provide a method for removal of billboards has been limited. Since existing
commercial off -premise signs cannot be amortized when within 660 feet of a
federal aid highway they should be "grandfathered".
There are approximately ninety off -premise commercial signs within the city.
Nine of those signs are more than 660 feet from a federal aid highway and
amortization could be applied to them. However, since there is a possibility
of lengthy and costly litigation over the length of amortization or other related
issues, staff is recommending that they also be "grandfathered". Especially
since there is the potential that most of these might be displaced anyway by the '
development of the lot before any legal issues are resolved. Staff does not
think that the removal of the few signs that would be left would have any
noticeable impact on the streetscape of Fort Collins, and the potential for
litigation with the billboard companies offsets whatever small benefit might be
realized through amortizing these signs.
Section 3
This deletes the present code section (29-563 (b)) which established an
amortization period for the removal of nonconforming off -premise signs. This
requirement was found to be invalid by the Colorado State Supreme Court for
off -premise signs located within 660 feet of a federal aid highway. Since all
non -conforming off -premise signs are within this distance, this section should
be repealed. Also deleted is section 29-563 (e) which provided for the original
six year amortization provision adopted with the sign code in 1971. This should
have been deleted previously since it is no longer applicable.
Section 9
The present code requires that any nonconforming sign which is located on
property annexed to the city must be removed or brought into compliance within
five (5) years after the date of annexation. The proposed amendment exempts
any off -premise sign which is within 660 feet of a federal aid highway from
having to comply with this amortization schedule. This is necessary since these
IV
1
1
January 15, 1991
signs are protected by federal law and were the subject of the litigation
mentioned above.
Section 5
This section repeals the current provision which allows all off -premise signs.
Since section 2 above prohibits certain types of off -premise signs, this current
code provision would be contradictory if left intact. Those off -premise signs
which will still be allowed, such as ideological and election signs, are already
regulated in other portions of the current City Code with respect to size, height
and location. Any new sign of this nature would have to comply with those
requirements. There will be no new off -premise commercial signs allowed.
Therefore Section 29-603 of the code is in part contradictory, and in part
redundant and should be repealed.
COMPARISON TABLES
Current code
120 sq. ft per face max.
0 setback under some conditions
24 ft. max. height
15 ft. from side lot line (30
ft. between signs)
no time limit for blank face
no limit to number of faces
DESIGN CRITERIA
19
Proposed under options A and 8
78 sq. ft. per face max.
15 ft. min. setback
15 ft. max. height
300 ft. spacing
50 day max. blank sign face
limit number of faces to 2
January 15, 1991
1
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW OFF -PREMISE COMMERCIAL SIGNS
Option A Option 8 Option C
still allowed, but still allowed, but not allowed
with additional only to replace
restrictions existing ones that
come down after a
temporary prohibition.
Replacement signs s
subject to stricter
regulations.
EFFECT ON NUMBER OF OFF -PREMISE COMMERCIAL SIGNS
Option A Option B Option C
will probably increase won't increase, except will decrease over
through annexation,may time.
decrease 10% through
temporary prohibition.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS '
The three options should be analyzed with regard to how they address the concerns
which have been identified. Those concerns center primarily around three issues:
the prominence of newly constructed billboards (appearance and location), the
increasing numbers of such signs, and their aesthetic impact on the community.
It is important to note that none of the options presented for consideration deal
with existing signs in terms of mandatory removal or remodeling in order to
conform to the proposed stricter regulations. Again, federal regulations do not
allow for this unless monetary compensation is paid to the owner of such sign.
The payment of such monetary compensation is an option the City may elect, but
one which does not require a Code amendment.
Option A will improve the appearance of new off -premise signs. This would be
accomplished by the adoption of the stricter standards dealing with size, height
and location. The City has received considerable negative feedback about the
number of recently constructed three -sided signs. This option would limit the
number of sign faces to two. The 300-foot spacing requirement is certainly one
of the most significant elements of this option. It would help reduce the
concentration of signs in close proximity to one another and would reduce the
number of available locations on which off -premise signs could be erected.
However, despite the strengths of Option A, it's major weakness is that the
number of signs will increase over time. Some signs will come down due to
development, but the number of available locations will also increase through
annexation, and that plus the current inventory of available locations, allows '
20
1 January 15, 1991
for the number of new signs to increase faster than the number removed. Since
there would be no way to control where new signs could be located, and since it
is in the best interest of the sign owner and advertiser to have signs in prime
locations, most of the new signs would probably be located along the city's main
corridors and gateways.
Option 8 addresses concerns relative to the appearance and location of new off -
premise signs as found in Option A. It goes farther in addressing the concerns
dealing with the increasing numbers of off -premise signs because of the "cap and
replacement" provisions. Specifically, the one -for -one replacement which would
be in effect after the temporary prohibition period ends would guarantee that
the number of off -premise signs in the community would not increase (other than
through annexation of properties which already contain such signs). The 300 foot
radius spacing requirement should eliminate the potential of signs on opposite
corners of an intersection; while measuring the spacing on both sides of the
street in all other instances would eliminate signs from being placed directly
across the street from other signs. These spacing requirements would definitely
reduce the number of available locations on which new signs could be constructed.
A prohibition of some duration could reduce the number of signs by lowering the
"cap". However, the proposed four year or 10% reduction time period could not
guarantee that a decrease will occur, nor can it guarantee that any decrease
which might occur would be noticeable. If no signs are lost in the next four
' years, then the "cap" will be unchanged from what it is today. If only four
signs are removed during this period, then the cap is reduced insignificantly.
Another scenario could be that if the sign companies believe that a number of
their prime location signs are in jeopardy of being lost due to development, they
could act to end the temporary prohibition by voluntarily removing nine signs.
This would then allow them to replace their prime location signs when they are
removed. It is possible that the signs which might be voluntarily removed are
not the most profitable signs because of their location off of the main corridors
of the City. Thus, while the sign inventory has been reduced by nine signs, the
decrease could be visually undetectable because the signs have been removed from
non -arterial streets. Most of the replacement signs, however, would probably
be built along the main corridors and gateways of the City. Even with the
stricter spacing requirements and a temporary prohibition or sign reduction plan,
the continued annexation of property will add new locations on which off -premise
signs can be located along the City's main streets. Consequently, while the
total number of such signs won't increase, and may actually decrease by as much
as 75%, the number of signs along certain streets could actually increase.
Option C does not deal with stricter regulations for new signs. Its focus is
entirely on prohibiting new off -premise commercial signs. Under this option,
the number of existing signs would decrease over time as lots containing such
signs are developed. With no replacement option, the inventory would not be
replenished. However, there have been some concerns expressed about this option
by the regulated sign industry and some members of the business community. The
sign industry is concerned that this proposal would eventually put them out of
business since they would not be able to replace signs which might be removed
21
January 15, 1991 1
by development or lost leases. Members of the business community and the sign
industry have expressed that off -premise advertising is a very important outlet
for small businesses to use in their advertising strategies. It gives them good
exposure at an affordable price and they are also important sources of
information directing tourists and visitors to such services as restaurants and
hotels. If the number of signs decreases over time, there would obviously be
fewer sign faces available for the merchants who desire to utilize off -premise
advertising.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Development Services staff is recommending that the City Council adopt Option
C. The Planning and Zoning Board also recommends the adoption of Option C and
the minutes of the November 19, 1990 P&Z Board meeting are attached for Council 's
information.
As previously mentioned, the three options should be analyzed with regard to
how they address concerns about the appearance and location of newly constructed
billboards, the increasing numbers of such signs, and their aesthetic impact on
the community. The original intent of the sign code was to regulate outdoor
signage in a manner that would enhance the appearance of the streetscape of the
city. The Code does this through regulations meant to control the amount of '
visual communication seen from the public rights -of -way of Fort Collins.
Although the sign code was very controversial, it is now widely accepted as being
one of the most successful programs ever undertaken by the City in terms of its
impact on the aesthetic character of the community. There has been, however,
growing sentiment by citizens that the sign ordinance is out-of-date and has too
many loopholes that allow the proliferation of billboards along most commercial
streets in Fort Collins.
Staff believes that each of the options has strengths as well as weaknesses as
outlined in the preceding analysis, but that Option C is the best way to deal
with the concerns raised and preserve the objective of the Code which is to
enhance the streetscape of the city."
Code Administrator Peter Barnes, gave a slide presentation and a brief staff
report on this item.
Barnes explained amortization requirements for various zones and reported that
prior to the last Council meeting there were 90 off -premise signs within the
City.
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to adopt
Ordinance No. 145, 1990, Option B.
Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, amending
the motion to read as follows: first sentence of Option B, Section 29-603
c
January 15, 1991
1
reading, "No new off -premise signs (except off -premise ideological and election
signs) shall be permitted until the ,number of off -premise signs which are in
existence in the City on the effective date of this ordinance is reduced by
fifteen (15) percent."
Councilmember Maxey as maker of the motion, accepted Councilmember Edwards motion
as a friendly amendment.
Allen Cunningham, Board Member of the Loveland Environmental Committee, spoke
in support of billboard elimination.
Yolanda Nicely, 1625 Crestmore Place, supported Option C banning billboards
completely.
Jori Kirkland, speaking on behalf of Judy Fort Brenneman owner of the Write
Shop, expressed concerns regarding the banning of billboards and stated she and
Ms. Brenneman support Option B.
Dennis Hiatt, a Longmont resident, stated that banning off -premise signs is
potentially devastating to businesses and their employees.
Cheryl Sakalowski, representing Larimer County Humane Society, noted that her
organization benefits from billboard advertising and did not want to see that
form of advertising ban.
Dan Seese, a sign painter residing at 3830 Capital Drive, agreed the amount of
off -premise signs should be limited and said he supported Option B.
Wes Sargeant, Marketing Consultant, supported Option B.
Linda Diehl, Sales Manager for KIIX and KTCL Radio Station spoke in support of
Option B.
Tom McKenna, 3500 Rolling Green, stated he would like to see billboards banned
and urged Council to adopt Option C.
Maureen Morris, a graphic designer residing at 2906 Bluegrass Drive, supported
Option B.
Rosalyn Spencer, 813 Warren Landing stated that billboard advertising is a
benefit for small and nonprofit companies.
Cami Pierson, Director of Marketing for the Fort Collins United Way, urged
Council to support Option B.
Councilmember Horak stressed the interruptions were very disturbing to Council,
staff and citizens who are interested commenting on other issues. He asked that
' decorum be reinstated so that the meeting could continue as scheduled.
23
January 15, 1991 '
Jackie O'Hara, 2949 Romney, stated she was pleased with the support of Option
B.
John 0. Walker, a Fort Collins Attorney, supported the Planning and Zoning Board
decision to ban billboards completely.
Ed Secor, 242 North Sunset, supported Option B.
Winette Payne, 1000 W. Laurel, opposed Option B and urged Council to adopt Option
C.
Fred Gardner, President of Gardner Signs Incorporated, encouraged Council to
adopt Option B.
Michael O'Connor, 141 Lyons Street, spoke in support of Option C.
City Attorney Steve Roy clarified that Option B, Section 29-603 is amended to
read as follows: "No new off -premise signs (except off -premise ideological and
election signs) shall be permitted until the number of off -premise signs which
are in existence in the city on the effective date of this ordinance is reduced
by fifteen (15) percent. The City Manager shall create a map showing the
existence of all off -premise signs which are in existence on the effective date
of this ordinance. Thereafter, the maximum number of off -premise signs to be '
permitted in the City at any one time shall not exceed 76 signs, except that
number may be increased to include additional ideological or election signs or
such signs as may be located on property which is subsequently annexed into the
city." The remainder of the section would stay the same.
Barnes clarified that new property annexed into the City with existing signage
would not be effected by this ordinance unless the sign is beyond 660 ft. from
a federally aided highway, then it would be subject to the 5 year annexation.
Councilmember Horak commented that he would like to see a policy written that
the City work with Larimer County to regulate Urban Growth Area signage. He
stated he would support Option B if it included the entire Urban Growth Area.
Councilmember Winokur spoke in support of Option B.
Councilmember Azari stated she supported Option B and commended the staff and
industry for working together.
The vote on Councilmember Maxey's motion as amended, was as follows:
Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
24
January 15, 1991
Ordinance No. 7, 1991, Amending Chapter 29
of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
Relating to Vehicle -Mounted Signs. Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There are a number of businesses in the city which display signs on vehicles or
trailers where the rp imary use of the vehicle or trailer appears to be for sign
display. In some cases these signs are the only signs on the property
advertising the business. In other instances, these signs are in addition to
permanent signage advertising the business, and in still other instances the
sign is an off -premise sign in that it advertises a product or service which is
located somewhere else than upon the lot where the sign is displayed. In all
cases though, the use of such signs is not in keeping with the intent of the sign
code which is to create orderly signage along the streets of the city. Since
vehicle -mounted signs are currently unregulated, these businesses have found.a
loophole in the Code.
These proposed regulations are intended to deal only with vehicles and vehicle -
mounted signs which are used in such a manner that the primary purpose of the
vehicle becomes that of a sign display.
BACKGROUND:
In its original form in 1971, the Sign Code classified a vehicle -mounted sign
as a type of portable sign. Since portable signs were prohibited, vehicle -
mounted signs were prohibited at that time. When the Code went into effect in
1977, it became clear to City staff that the wording in the Code was not
sufficient to prohibit vehicle -mounted signs without placing barricades at the
city limits and denying entry to any vehicle which displayed any type of signage.
Consequently, the Code was amended in 1979 by deleting references to vehicle -
mounted signs in the portable sign definition. Since the Code was not amended
at that time to include any other provisions regarding such signs, they have
remained unregulated to this date.
This proposed ordinance is intended to address concerns primarily related to
signs which are placed on the deck of a trailer or in the back of a pickup.
These are the types of vehicle -mounted signs which appear to be used primarily
for signage purposes and clearly exploit the lack of regulation in the Sign
Code. The majority of these signs are Tocated along North College Avenue and
their use appears to be increasing in popularity. The businesses which display
signs of this nature should be able to replace them with permanent signage and
comply with the code, just as the vast majority of the other businesses in the
city have done.
' Staff has held two public forums which were open to .the community for the purpose
25
January 15, 1991
of discussing the proposed changes. Letters were sent to the businesses which
utilize the above -described trailer or pick-up mounted signs inviting them to
attend the public forums. Several of the business owners in attendance expressed
concerns that if their vehicle signs were required to be removed they would be
unable to have adequate signage. Staff researched the sign surveys for these
businesses and followed up their concerns by explaining to them what types of
replacement signage they could legally have under the Code. A second letter was
sent to these businesses inviting them to attend the November 19, 1990 Planning
and Zoning Board meeting, especially if they still had concerns or unanswered
questions. None of these businesses were represented at the P&Z meeting and
there was no expressed opposition or additional public comment.
The following amendments are proposed in order to regulate the use of vehicle -
mounted signs.
Section I
This adds a definition for "vehicle -mounted sign" to the definition section of
the Zoning Code. As proposed, the term would refer to any sign (other than an
ideological or election sign) which is placed on or in a vehicle as well as any
signage which is placed on any object which in turn is placed in or attached to
a vehicle. The amendment also defines a vehicle.
Section 2 '
This section of the ordinance contains the specific regulations which are to be
applied to vehicle -mounted signs.
Subsection (a) requires that all vehicle -mounted signs shall be permanently
affixed or magnetically applied to a vehicle and that they project no more than
eighteen (18) inches above the surface to which they are attached. Additionally,
any sign mounted upon the hood, trunk or roof of a vehicle can not exceed two
(2) square feet in area per face. This regulation is intended to ensure that
vehicles are not drastically modified for the sole purpose of displaying a sign,
and that large signs are not placed on top of vehicles or do not project several
feet above the wall of a trailer, truck, or other vehicle. Prohibiting signs
from being located on the top of vehicles is difficult to do since there are a
number of types of roof -top signs which are common and serve useful purposes,
such as an "oversized load" sign on a semi -tractor. A blanket prohibition of
roof -top signs would create difficult enforcement situations. Therefore, staff
believes that the most appropriate thing to do is to regulate the size of such
signs.
Subsection (b) prohibits the placement of signs in the bed of a truck or on the
deck of a trailer. These are the types of vehicle -mounted signs which are used
primarily for signage and exploit the lack of regulation in the City's current
ordinance.
26
January 15, 1991
Subsection (c) requires that the primary purpose of a vehicle upon which a
vehicle -mounted sign is affixed must be to serve a useful function in the
transportation or conveyance of persons or commodities from one place to another,
including transportation to and from work. The vehicle cannot be used primarily
for the display of signage, as is the case with a number of the trailer and truck
signs displayed in the city.
Subsection (d) prohibits vehicles from being used as off -premise sign displays
by requiring that a vehicle cannot be parked on a lot for the primary purpose
of directing or attracting attention to something which exists or is offered
elsewhere than upon the same lot where the vehicle is parked.
Subsection (e) regulates banners placed on vehicles by referring to the banner
provisions which already exist in the code. This means that banners on vehicles
would be allowed as temporary signage just as they are if they were mounted on
a building or attached to poles in the parking lot. The banner regulations
require that a no -fee permit be obtained from the Zoning Office and that no
property can display banners or pennants for more than twenty (20) days per
calendar year.
Subsection (f) exempts vehicle -mounted signs from the preceding regulations when
they are used in connection with a special event. The amendment also defines
' what a special event is. The term is not meant to apply to a special sale that
some business is having, but rather to some event that is different in character
from the customary or usual activities associated with the business. Special
sales can occur numerous times during the year and are therefore considered a
customary activity. It would be permissible though for a vehicle -mounted sign
to be used for a parade or carnival since these events are not customary.
Subsection (g) establishes a one hundred twenty (120) day amortization schedule
for existing vehicle -mounted signs which do not comply with the provisions of
the ordinance (June 15, 1991). This should allow adequate time for existing
businesses to install permanent signage to replace their vehicle -mounted signs.
Subsection (h) exempts signs which are being transported for installation from
the requirements pertaining to vehicle -mounted signs. When a sign is being
transported for installation there is no intent by anyone to use the sign as an
advertising tool. It is usually necessary to place such a sign on the deck of
a trailer or in the back of a truck during transport, therefore it would not be
practical to extend the prohibition of such placement to this type of sign.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is concerned that if vehicle -mounted signs remain unregulated the number
of such signs will continue to increase. Any increase would be an exploitation
of the loophole in the Sign Code and would be contrary to the intent of the Code
to create orderly signage along the streets of the city: Also of concern is the
' potential that vehicle -mounted signs could become an increasingly popular method
27
January 15, 1991 ,
of off -premise advertising in light of the probable imposition of stricter
regulations on permanent off -premise signs. These regulations would eliminate
the problem signs while still allowing vehicle signage to be used in a reasonable
manner.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt this ordinance on First Reading.
The Planning and Zoning Board considered this item on its discussion agenda and
also recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance."
Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to adopt
Ordinance No. 7, 1991 on First Reading.
Councilmember Horak commended staff for its time and effort on the project.
The vote on Councilmember Mabry's motion was as follows: Councilmembers Azari,
Edwards, Horak, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 8, 1991 Amending Sections 26-283
and 26-284 of the Code Regarding Wastewater
Plant Investment Fees. Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff's memorandum on this item. '
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
The proposed ordinance increases the wastewater plant investment fees (PIFs)
for non-residential customers. The revenue generated from the proposed increase
is estimated at about $80,000 in 1991. The revenue will pay for growth related
capital construction of wastewater treatment and collection facilities.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed ordinance increases the wastewater PIFs for non-residential
customers based on the results of a cost -of -service study conducted by staff in
conjunction with James M. Montgomery Engineers. The study found that residential
PIFs ($1,600 for a single family residence) are adequate to cover the costs of
providing treatment and collection system capacity to new customers. Non-
residential PIFs need to be increased.
Some new concepts have been integrated into the PIF calculation. In the past,
non-residential customers with 314 inch water taps were charged the same PIF as
residential customers with 314 inch taps. However, the studies show that non-
residential customers with 314 inch taps discharge an average of 44% more
wastewater than the same size residential taps. The proposed change to PIFs
for normal strength discharges from customers with 314 inch to 2 inch meters is
based on average flows for each meter size. '
28
January 15, 1991
Non-residential customers with water meter sizes of 3 inches or larger are
proposed to have their PIFs negotiated or determined on an individual basis.
For meters of these sizes, flow and wastewater strength vary considerably, and
average values are difficult to determine. Therefore, a calculation will be
done for each new customer based on the predicted wastewater flow and organic
strength.
Some new customers, regardless of meter size, will place a greater demand on
wastewater treatment facilities because of high strength wastewater as determined
by biological oxygen demand (BOL) and total suspended solids (TSS). For these
customers, one of two approaches may be taken to determining the PIF based on
a formula included in the ordinance. A new customer may choose to have their
PIF determined on the basis of national averages of BOD and TSS concentrations
for their industry that are published by the Environmental Protection Agency.
As an alternative, they may produce data that shows what the strength for their
particular discharge will be, and pay the appropriate amount based on the
formula.
The proposed PIF increases for non-residential customers with normal strength
wastewater are listed below. New customers with a higher strength wastewater
will be identified based on the list already contained in the City Code, and
will pay a PIF surcharge based on the average or actual strength of waste for
their facility.
(See attached list.)
'
PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL
PIFS - NORMAL
STRENGTH
SIZE OF
EXISTING
PROPOSED
PERCENT
METER
PIF
PIF
INCREASE
314"
$ 1,600
$ 2,000
25.0%
1"
$ 2,700
$ 5,100
88.9%
1.5"
$ 5,300
$ 9,100
71.7%
2"
$ 8,500
$15,100
77.6Y
3"
$16,000
NEGOTIATED
N/A
4"
$26,700
NEGOTIATED
N/A
6"
$53ilOO
NEGOTIATED
N/A
8"
NEGOTIATED
NEGOTIATED
N/A
The proposed increases for non-residential customers are substantial. The
attached Table compares Fort Collins PIFs with those of other Front Range
communities. There are a number of reasons why the Fort Collins rates appear
high in the comparison.
1. Other communities charge the same PIF for residential and non-
residential customers with a 314" water tap.
1 29
January 15, 1991
2. Other communities do not consider the strength of wastewater as
a factor in setting PIFs.
3. Other communities pay the interest on indebtedness for growth
related capital construction from the monthly service charges paid
by existing customers. Fort Collins includes the interest charges
in the PIF.
4. Fort Collins is one of the first communities to build treatment
facilities without a federal construction grant for 55% to 85% of
the cost of construction. Other communities are not expecting to
construct facilities without grant assistance within the next 5 to
10 years.
Letters were sent to 14 developers, realtors and community organizations
informing them of the proposed change to the non-residential PIFs.
Representatives of the City Planning Department were included in the Wastewater
Master Plan Committee discussions. Some concern was expressed about the
increases. As a result of this input, the ordinance includes a provision that
Council may adopt a policy allowing PIFs to be paid over time rather than having
the entire amount due at the time a building permit is issued. This provision
already exists in the Code for water PIFs, although a Council policy has not
been adopted at this time. Neither the Water Board nor the Wastewater Master
Plan Committee has formally considered whether Council should adopt such a '
policy. However, both the Water Board and the Committee recommend adoption of
the remainder of the ordinance."
Water and Sewer Director Mike Smith, gave a brief staff presentation on this
item and answered Council questions.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to adopt
Ordinance No. 8, 1991 on First Reading.
Ed Stoner, President of Fort Collins, Inc., asked Council to allow residents the
option of paying fees up front or amortizing the fees over an extended period
of time.
Councilmember Mabry concurred with Mr. Stoner.
Councilmember Horak stated he did not agree with the "phase -in" provision of
the ordinance.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Councilmembers Azari,
Edwards, Horak, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
30
January 15, 1991
Items Relating to Economic Opportunities, Adopted
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 9, 1991 Authorizing an
Agreement for Administration of Economic Opportunity Funds by the Fort
Collins Area Community Foundation for a Term of up to Five Years.
B. Resolution 91-12 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins Dissolving
the Economic Opportunities Advisory Committee.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
This action involves a prior appropriation authorized by City Council in the
amount of $210,000; $110,000 of which was made available to fund and encourage
innovative programs designed to stimulate and create economic opportunities for
the unemployed and underemployed residents of Fort Collins. Of the $110,000,
approximately $50,000 has been used to support four (4) programs; leaving a
current balance of approximately $65,000 (including interest income). This
fund, which is known as the Economic Opportunities Fund, is currently
administered by the Fort Collins Area Foundation pursuant to City Council
Resolution No. 87-124, and a subsequent contract executed between the City of
Fort Collins and the Foundation in January, 1988. The current contract provides
for twenty percent (20%) of the interest earned each year on the fund to be
available to the Foundation to cover its costs for administering the fund.
The purpose of this Ordinance is to authorize the City Manager to enter into a
contract, not to exceed five (5) years, with the Fort Collins Foundation to
administer funds held in the Foundation's Economic Opportunities Fund. Although
the current contract with the Foundation did not specify a completion date,
staff believes that the original intent was that the funds would be totally
expended on program support over a two-year period. The amount of time required
to review and process grant proposals simply precluded this. Staff therefore
believes that it J s important to provide Council with the opportunity to review
the status of this fund. If Council chooses to continue the relationship with
the Foundation, staff recommends executing a new five year contract which
specifies the long term focus outlined as follows:
The objective of the Foundation is to build a permanent endowment for Economic
Opportunity which can be used to support innovative programs in the community
designed to address the problems of unemployment and. underemployment. The
purpose in selecting a five year period is to provide a significant term during
which the fund can mature. The agreement will require the Foundation to prepare
semi-annual reports for review by the City. The contract will, as in the
' current agreement, provide for early termination, without cause, by the City
following proper notification.
31
January 15, 1991
The functions of the Economic Opportunities Advisory Committee ("EOAC"), which
include proposal review and recommendation, will be assumed by the Foundation's
internal advisory committee. EOAC members will be invited to join this
committee in order to maintain the continuity of the effort. The EOAC is
therefore recommending that the City Council dissolve the Committee concurrent
with the execution of a new contract between the City and the Foundation.
In 1987 when the City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a
contract with the Foundation to administer the Economic Opportunities Fund, the
specific purpose was to utilize the Fund to address Council's special interest
in Economic Opportunity. Council was particularly concerned with assisting
local residents in securing and retaining meaningful employment.
Council sought broad -based community involvement to develop new approaches to
help expand and share economic opportunities with a greater number of residents.
Toward this end, Council adopted Resolution No. 87-127 which created a nine -
member citizen advisory committee to work with the Foundation to administer the
funds, seek and review proposals, and make recommendations for contracts for
services and funding.
Since its inception in 1987, the EOAC has accomplished several of its goals
'
including research aimed at evaluating barriers to employment on the local
level. The EOAC initiated an RFP process targeting programs which address the
problems of unemployment and underemployment, as well as barriers to employment
such as literacy and self-esteem. The EOAC reviewed many funding candidates and
ultimately selected four programs for support. (See attached May 30, 1990
Progress report for additional background information).
The programmatic focus of the Committee remains consistent with the initial
mission of supporting innovation in stimulating economic opportunities. The
method which the EOAC now recommends, does however, represent a shift from the
initial focus of total program support.
The EOAC believes that the best way in which to address the problems which have
been cited is to establish and build a permanent Economic Opportunity Fund which
can be used to leverage funds for innovative programs which may be available
through private donors, corporate sponsors, and other foundations. The approach
recommended by the EOAC is to consider the current fund balance of approximately
$65,000 as seed for the permanent endowment, and to use interest income as a
local "match", or complement, to other funding sources.
The EOAC acknowledges that its role in organizing this effort was of paramount
importance, but suggests that its existence is no longer required. With the
responsibility for the administration of the Fund placed squarely with the ,
32
January 15, 1991
' Foundation, the need for a se P arate City advisory committee will be greatly
reduced. The Foundation has, in addition, extended an invitation to current
members of the EOAC to join its committee and continue to work on these
important issues.
Options for City Council consideration include the Following:
1. Execute a new five year contract for services with the Foundation to
administer and report on the Fund. (RECOMMENDED OPTION)
2. Execute a new five-year contract for services with the Foundation to
administer and report on the Fund. Retain the EOAC and appoint new
members to fill current vacancies. Under this option the EOAC would
duplicate the function of the Foundation's internal committee.
3. Terminate program and consider alternative uses for the remaining fund
balance."
Economic Development Administrator Frank Bruno gave a brief report on this item
and outlined the termination provision in the contract.
Diane Hogarty, Executive Director of the Fort Collins Foundation, stated the
' foundation has no desire to change the composition of the Advisory Committee and
clarified she would continue including committee members from target
populations.
Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded Councilmember Winokur, to adopt
Ordinance No. 9, 1991 on First Reading.
Councilmember Winokur stated he was pleased to see the program continue.
Councilmember Horak stated the City has the ability to administer funds and he
did not support the ordinance.
The vote on Councilmember Mabry's motion was as follows: Councilmembers Azari,
Edwards, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: Councilmember Horak
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to adopt
Resolution 91-12.
Diane Hogarty, Executive Director of the Fort Collins Foundation, stated the
Foundation has requested appointments to the foundation from the City in the
past but has not been given any names.
33
January 15, 1991
1
Councilmember Azari commended the Economic Opportunity Advisory Committee for
an outstanding job.
The vote on Councilmember Mabry's motion was as follows: Councilmembers Azari,
Edwards, Horak, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 91-13 Authorizing the
Mayor to Enter into an Intergovernmental
Agreement with Larimer County for the
Provision of Social Services in 1991, Adopted
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
The 1991 Budget appropriated $176,000 in the General Fund to be distributed to
human services agencies. Since 1981, the City has contracted with the Larimer
County Department of Human Development to allocate and administer the
distribution of funds.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
'
Prior to 1981, individual contracts were executed between the various social
service agencies and the City of Fort Collins. While the City had the
responsibility for paying each individual agency, actual monitoring of the
agencies' performance was done by the Larimer County Department of Human
Development. Since then, the mechanism for City funding of social services has
evolved to a single contract with Larimer County whereby the City conveys funds
to the County and the County distributes those funds among social service
agencies as agreed to by the City and monitors the performance of the individual
agencies. Loveland provides funding for social service agencies in the same
manner. The County Department of Human Development thus coordinates a county-
wide program funded by contributions from Fort Collins, Loveland and the County.
This resolution authorizes the Mayor to enter into an Intergovernmental
Agreement with Larimer County for the provision of social services in 1991."
Councilmember Edwards withdrew from discussion on this item due to a perceived
conflict of interest.
Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt
Resolution 91-13.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 E. Harmony Road, opposed the Resolution and stated he did
not believe the City should delegate the overseeing of the funds. '
34
January 15, 1991
The vote on Councilmember Mabry's motion was as follows: Councilmembers Azari,
Horak, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to bring
back a resolution addressing existing signage in Urban Growth Areas that will
be annexed into the City.
City Manager Steve Burkett clarified that a basic framework would be provided
for Council at the time of Second Reading.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Councilmembers, Azari,
Edwards, Horak, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to direct
staff to explore options for a skateboarding facility and to come back with
concrete proposals in 60 days.
Christine O'Neill, 2509 Darren Street, thanked Council for its support in
examining options for skateboarders.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 E. Harmony Road, stated Council should be consistent with
its support of recreation users.
John O'Neill, 2509 Darren Street, asked Council for assistance in keeping Fort
Skate open.
Councilmember Edwards stated he supported the motion but stated that he would
not support a taxpayer bail out of Fort Skate.
The vote on Council member 6ak's motion was as follows: Councilmembers Azari,
Edwards, Horak, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None.
Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to direct
staff to bring back no later than March 5, 1991, a policy that would address a
process for time payments for Wastewater Plant Investment Fees.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 E. Harmony Road, opposed time payments of PIFs through
utility bills.
The vote on Councilmember Mabry's motion was as follows: Councilmembers Azari,
' Edwards, Horak, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None.
35
January 15, 1991 '
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Winokur reported the laundry facility at the Mountain Park Homes
Public Housing Project had been closed due to failure to provide handicap
accessible machines. He stated the cost of the machines needed were between
$5,000 to $6,000.
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, directing
the City Manager to make funds available from existing appropriations to acquire
appropriate handicapped accessible laundry machines for the Mountain Park Homes
Public Housing Project so the laundry facility can be reopened.
Councilmember Mabry stated he would not support the motion until Council had
further input from the Housing Authority regarding its suggestions and
recommendations on the issue.
Councilmember Azari stated she supported the motion and would like to hear from
the Executive Director of the Housing
Authority.
Councilmember Winokur amended his
motion to direct staff to bring back
alternative options for action at the
February 5,
1991 meeting.
Councilmember Horak, as seconder of
the motion,
stated he would accept the
'
amendment as a friendly amendment to
the original
motion.
The vote on Councilmember Winokur's
motion was
as follows: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Horak, Mabry, Maxey and
Winokur.
Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Maxey stated information on the Noise Ordinance has been brought
back to Council, and barring any other direction the item will be brought to
closure.
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, allotting
15 minutes for continued public hearing on the Middle East Peace Initiative.
Mary Bates, 609 Duke Lane, spoke in opposition of the two minute time
constraint.
The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion` was as follows: Councilmembers
Azari, Edwards, Horak, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: Councilmember Mabry
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Paul Bates, 609 Duke Lane, urged Council to vote on war and peace in resolution
form. ,
36
J
L7
January 15, 1991
Bob Dean, 1525 Quail Hollow Drive, stated he would like to see the Middle East
Peace Initiative on the next agenda and said a presentation on the issue from
the Mayor would be more effective than a petition.
Ed Opitz, 801 Smith, expressed frustration that it was business as usual at the
Council meeting while there is a crisis in the Persian Gulf.
Jennifer Cross, 318 S. Whitcomb, stated she felt the issue should be addressed
at a local level.
Marie Shaffner, 925 Columbia Road, thanked Council for the extended time and
urged its support in peace efforts.
Judy Dutmer, 627 Laporte Avenue, urged Council to support the Peace Initiative.
Pat Mahoney, 2208 Woodford Court, read the Middle East Peace Initiative and
asked Council to include the Initiative on the next agenda.
Michael O'Connor, 141 Lyons Street, urged Council to vote in favor of the Middle
East Peace Initiative.
Bruce
Lockhart,
2500
East Harmony
Road, commented
on the
Gulf
crisis.
'
Brad
Finch, 126
North
Mack, spoke
in favor of the
Middle
East
Peace Initiative.
William Gerdes, 915 E. Drake Road, asked Council to vote against the Initiative
and urged support for the President and troops stationed in the Gulf.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
610"V\ A
Mayor
ATTEST:
&kolmwN V. ►.
`.
4A