Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/05/1992PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES October 5, 1992 Gerry Horak, Council Liaison Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison The continuation of the September 28, 1992 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:33 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairman Strom, Vice Chairman Lloyd Walker, Jan Collier, Joe Carroll, Jim Klataske, Members Laurie O'Dell and Rene Clements -Cooney were absent. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Kerrie Ashbeck, Ted Shepard, Jan Meisel, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Joe Frank, Mike Herzig and Georgiana Taylor. Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily correct since none signed in. AGENDA REVIEW Tom Peterson reviewed the Discussion Agenda. The Discussion Agenda included: Item 1 - Solar Orientation Ordinance - Audit of First 350 Lots, #38-91; Item 2 - Northeast Area Transportation Study, #46-92; Item 3 - Glenmoor PUD - Preliminary & Final, #30-84B; Item 4 - Silver Oaks PUD - Preliminary, #14-88F. SOLAR ORIENTATION ORDINANCE - AUDIT OF FIRST 350 LOTS. #38-91 Is Janet Meisel, Planner, stated they were here tonight to review the audit for the Solar Orientation Ordinance. As Mr. Peterson indicated they were reviewing the Ordinance #142- 1991. The Ordinance was adopted in December of 1991 and at that point, the Ordinance indicated that new solar lot orientation requirements be adopted to the Land Development Guidance System and the Subdivision Regulations. The Ordinance required that 65% of the new single family lots be solar oriented and required an audit after the first 350 lots received preliminary approval and that a final audit occur after the next 350 lots receive preliminary approval. Today they would be reviewing the audit for the first 350 lots. The findings from the Ordinance indicate 447 ►ots have been approved since adoption. There were approximately 10 projects approved of which 230 lots actually met the requirements of the solar oriented lot. That was a percentage of 52%, compared to what the ordinance required which was 65%, 58 lots were granted variances of the 447. Three of the projects were within 15% of the 65% needed. There was a detailed Attachment A, which breaks down each project specifically in their packets, if they wanted additional information. Most of the variances that were requested were due to infrastructure improvements or existing conditions. Three of the projects, staff had recommended to have conditions placed which would meet the intent of the ordinance. The Board declined and it was indicated that they declined because they were not able to apply those conditions from the beginning of the ordinance. Of the 350 lots, none of them currently have building permits on them, although, several developments have infrastructure and road improvements. What that told them was at this point they were unable to make decisions or due a thorough analysis in terms of the cost or benefits of the program. The ordinance, at this time had been relatively easy to implement and has taken about a half hour to an hour for the project planners to review. They have not received any public comment at this time. Their intent was they would take public comment tonight to Planning & Zoning Board Meeting October 5, 1992 Page 2 hear what the community had to say. They notified approximately 200 people of tonights meeting. Staff believes more discussion was needed on the issues of whether the lots that were granted variances should somehow be required to meet the intent of the ordinance. Staff was looking for direction tonight in terms of coming back with some sort of program to meet the intent of the ordinance if and when they grant variances to the ordinance. In general the ordinance was achieving its purpose. They believe that the variance requests were reasonable and were expected at this point because the ordinance was so new. The staff would recommend at this point that they, continue the monitoring program of another 350 lots and at which time they may be able to give a better recommendation on whether the program or ordinance was working. PUBLIC COMMENTS Randy Larsen, 505 Locust Street, Conservation Chair of Poudre Valley Group Sierra Club, He was surprised when he saw the audit because in some ways, it seemed as if they were going backwards, 52% of the individual houses were able to meet that requirement, whereas before the ordinance was passed, they were at 55%. That certainly was not the intent of the ordinance to have less houses which have solar orientation. He was very sympathetic with the reason the variances were granted. What was a little more difficult for him to understand and after a bit of research he was able to figure it out was why it was that City staff was able to suggest mitigating circumstances or mitigating conditions which the Board then had to reject. That was certainly because of the fact that there was alot of legal considerations as was pointed out in the initial project, you just can't add mitigation, post -hoc, after a project has been approved. That was an unfair burden to the developers or anyone else. They are given a set of rules to follow and they are doing what they can to try and follow those rules. To that extent it was an unfair thing. His first suggestion as what they could do to at least try to work toward the intent of this ordinance, was to have specific mitigation measures worked right into the ordinance. They were not in the ordinance now. Until they are in the ordinance, it was nothing that could be suggested, certainly not post -hoc. His first suggestion was, could they somehow ask City staff to move this up on the list of priorities. The ordinance was passed by City Council believing that the requirements of the ordinance were in the best interest to the citizens of Fort Collins. Now that they have seen that this is creating a problem, he thought it would behoove them to try to get work on that as soon as they possibly could. June Peterson, 630 S. Mason, stated her basic question was the findings that "a total of 447 lots were reviewed and received approval under the Solar Orientation Ordinance. Of which 52% actually met the requirements of the Solar Oriented lots". Her question was would it not, obviously, be detrimental to the public good if the intent of the ordinance was not met by alternative means. She was concerned where it says in the summary the fact that 58 lots did not meet the solar orientation requirements should not be of great concern at this time. She believed it was a great concern. She thought it was a big concern when only 52% of the lots were meeting the ordinance and the rest of them are not meeting the ordinance and there was nothing saying the . Planning & Zoning Board Meeting October 5, 1992 Page 3 developers have to find some alternative means to meet the requirements or fulfill the intent of the ordinance. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, thought that what they had found was in line with alot of the concerns a year ago when they were talking about this. On some sites, solar orientation worked very well. On other sites, the best plan was not necessarily the plan that had two thirds of the lots pointed south. Throughout the discussion as staff developed this ordinance, consistently presented that the intent of the ordinance wasn't to dilute the quality of planning in Fort Collins in order to force lots to face south. He thought that this was important to be remembered. Solar Orientation was only one of many things that determines the best possible plan for a site and he thought if the intent was changing, we should say so. He also disagreed that the condition that was suggested on the three projects a couple months ago was really in line with the intent of the ordinance. He did not think it was the intent, if you have a site that leant itself to solar orientation, you were fine. If you have a site that did not lend itself to solar orientation, then you were going to have alot of extra costs and requirements put on your project. He also thought at this point, we should remember that most of the plans they have seen, were underway well before the ordinance was adopted and as you have seen from the variances that have been requested, alot of infrastructure and things that pre determine the alignment of streets and lots were in place before the ordinance was even drafted. He did not think that you could get a real clear review of the effects of the ordinance at this time. • Bill Bartran, Developer in Fort Collins, stated he lives at 1601 Lakeridge Court which was an old part of town, west of the CSU campus. He would like to support Mr. Wards position that it is too early to evaluate the ordinance. Scott Mason, Chairman for Land Use Planning Committee for Citizen Planners, he was also on the solar orientation advisory committee. He agreed that we have not allowed for the ordinance to work itself through the pipeline and start affecting the new lots. As Eldon spoke of earlier, most of these things were in the process before the ordinance took affect and they really should not expect to see much change there on those existing lots. He recommend they approve the recommendation of staff to look at it again and 350 more lots and maybe by that time they would have worked through all the existing lots that had preexisting conditions and maybe next time staff could focus on some lots that did not have existing roads and existing utilities. He thought as far as having steep slopes and other existing natural features, that might have been a statistical quirk at the ten projects they looked at had some of those. The 447 lots sounds like alot, but really it was only 10 projects and he thought they should probably keep an eye on it for another 350 lots and look for and emphasize the new developments, the new overall development plans that do not have these pre-existing conditions on it. He wanted to reemphasize, staff did an excellent job in proving that you don't necessarily loose good design, we don't necessarily loose good planning by implementing the solar orientation ordinance. John Giuliano, Builder and Developer in Fort Collins, stated he had talked to them about a year ago when this was being discussed and he was going to pull a switch. He was going to the defense of the City staff. He thought contrary to what some people believe that the variances were taken easily and lightly. He could assure them that they have not. The Planning Department looked at the Solar Orientation Ordinance very seriously and did not give lightly to the quest for variance. He believed that it was too long to evaluate the ordinance or to make . changes to it. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting October 5, 1992 Page 4 PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member Walker stated that he felt as though the ordinance had been working the way it should. The plans they have seen did have alot of pre-existing conditions and yet, all of them one way or another met the intent of the ordinance. In other words, they had a number of solar lots and 6 number of lots for legitimate reasons were granted a variance. He agreed with some of the speakers that suggest that they needed to look at it again in a year, or after another 350 units come through. It was obvious that when they saw some of these, the pre-existing conditions were difficult to work around. Yet, again a good faith effort was made by the builders and that he thought the intent was being met. As far as the mitigation measures, we have taken a position that either it makes it or it doesn't make it. If we grant some variances, he thought the granting of variances should not suggest that mitigation needed to be done. He did not believe it was in the ordinance. He thought the ordinance was designed to have lots that were solar oriented or excused from that for certain exemptions. He was satisfied with that. Member Carroll stated he was somewhat troubled with looking at the overall picture without looking at any of the individual subdivisions that they have granted variances to. There seemed to be very good and valid reasons in every case why they did not. He was somewhat frustrated that they have not been able to meet the requirement or at least come close to it, but the reasons were good. He believed it was too early to look at. He agreed with staff, he would be alot more interested in projects that come in where they were looking at a brand new overall development plan for the entire area. He would expect an increase in compliance. Member Cottier commented on appropriate mitigation. It was one thing they talked about at their worksession. Obviously, in the past, when it was suggested they did not think it was appropriate at this point. She thought that it would be appropriate to look at mitigation measures that might be suggested with the next audit and then we could determine whether or not they want to add that to the whole concept of solar orientation since many of the mitigation measures would not likely be strictly related to solar. Member Walker moved that they recommend to the City Council to continue with the review of the Solar Orientation Ordinance. He thought what they had seen to this point seems to indicate that it was generally working, however, it has not had a fair test and would recommend that they have another review after the next 350 lots come through this process. Member Carroll seconded the motion. Chairman Strom commented that he agreed with what several of them had said and he was disappointed that they were only showing 52% but also having sat through the discussion on each of these projects, he understood how they got to this point and that we should continue to look at this down the road and take a closer look, especially the ones that come to them as new projects. The motion passed 5-0. NORTHEAST AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY. #46-92 Rick Ensdor£f, City Transportation Director, stated he was here on behalf of the City Council to ask for review and comments on the Northeast Area Transportation Study. The study has Planning & Zoning Board Meeting October 5, 1992 Page 5 been going on for about eight months. Council put together a Citizens Advisory Committee to work with staff and a consultant to review transportation in the northeast area of the city. They have done that and put together a key findings document and presented that to the City Council at the worksession and Council asked for additional input from Boards and Commissions in the city and one of them was the Planning and Zoning Board. He has provided the Board with a copy of that summary and they had also provided a couple of additional documents, one he passed out tonight, some comments from Citizen Planners. There were some key recommendations in the plan. There was a bicycle plan for the northeast area, an auto/road plan the committee had developed. They looked at transit and looked at pedestrians. There were recommendations in those areas also and probably of main concern the issue of a by-pass. The committee did not reach consensus on that item, the other items and recommendations that he mentioned, they did. In the area of the by-pass they had a majority and minority opinion. That was presented in the document also, the background of what lead up to those differences of opinion. Member Carroll asked Mr. Ensdorff, in looking at the report, he did not notice City politics and portions of the Comprehensive Plan that this study would dove tail together with, he was thinking of revitalization of North College Avenue, of development north of the City rather than south of the City, some land use policies. Were they in there or were they not in there. . Mr. Ensdorff replied they were in the study, they might not be in the summary version, they were in the study that went to Council and each one of the different areas, they tried to relate the transportation policies and objectives that Council approved last December and relate the work of the Citizen's Advisory Committee towards policies and objectives. They were documented in the study, they aren't in the summary they had, the committee did rely on those transportation policies and also in the area of land use, relied on existing City policy to do projections on build out and development in the northeast area using existing City standards and policies. Member Carroll asked, particularly in the areas of land use policies, were there any that came to mind, such as revitalization of North College Avenue and encouraging development north of the City, and were there any others that occurred to him that the group looked at. Mr. Ensdorff replied, Joe Frank, the Assistant Planning Director was part of the technical advisory committee that worked with the group. Other planning or land use policies did not pop out, but he assured them that the City's policies were talked about. In fact, some of the policies the committee looked at seeing if they could change them, maybe change densities in the area to see if it would facilitate transit and looked at some possible variations. The Planning Department did discuss the policies and planning. The one on North College came out in a specific recommendation about North College Avenue. They looked at land use policies, he could not, off the top of his head, specifically say the other ones. Chairman Strom invited members of the committee to speak if they had things to add to the discussion. 0 Planning & Zoning Board Meeting October 5, 1992 Page 6 PUBLIC INPUT Linda Hopkins, lives in the northeast area and was on the committee representing the Country Club Neighborhood and the Nedrah Acres Homeowners' Association. Although there were other residents in the northeast area on the committee as well, she was one of the minority when they came to making a final recommendation, but would like to emphasize that those individuals expressing a minority view point did concur with the majority on a number of items. They tried to consider items separately, so there was consensus as they worked through the process. They did agree on the land use plan and mapping that they saw. They did agree on the employment projections and the housing density projections that they saw as they were presented. They went over those thoroughly. They all came to some consensus on the traffic projections that were presented to them. There were a number of Council Members who are fond of saying at public meetings that they have seen the same information but had come to a different conclusion. She would use that same line that she got the same information, she just happened to come to a different conclusion with some other committee members as well. She thought while the majority of the committee opted for the third alternative traffic plan, she was one that believed the interim solution would be entirely too tempting to become "the" solution. While they all agreed that an effective bypass must be north of Douglas Road, at a minimum to offer an alternative east/west shortcut was not the best solution. The alternative three that uses the rural Lemay right-of-way and then cuts back onto Lemay and then goes west to College Avenue bisects residential land. It has as best as she could figure out, a very bizarre crossing at Vine Drive and your ability to get on and off of that still baffled her and she probably would only figure out in a car after doing it a couple of times. She thought those were the things that, neighbors in the northeast would be concerned about. She thought the neighbors in the northeast have had considerable opportunity through public meetings and were physically walked through the process. The committee was going through as well, they had the same information. If you could refer to Mel Shaumberger's letter to HNTB, their consultant, she thought he described about every point that they might have been concerned about, but primarily, she thought of those of process and timing, that on page two, the top of the page, the paragraph that basically says that any alternative that was less than Douglas Road was just going to be a temporary fix and would extend too long into the future. She wanted to reiterate that there were many points that they agreed upon, but as far as the neighbors and her attempt to represent the neighborhoods in the northeast, she felt that there would be continuing opposition to this by pass alignment. Ed Secor, stated he was also a minority view point on the bypass issue. He wanted to echo her comments that much of this report represented the consensus of the public. The bypass was the issue where they were not able to reach a consensus. He wanted to provide a couple more comments to flush out some of the viewpoint on the minority opinion. There had been a concern the impact of the alternative three alignment on the neighborhoods in the northeast. He thought some of these impacts may be indirect. If they had a possible realignment of State Highway 14 on this route, there were parcels that could conceivably draw a large scale commercial development which was not part of the vision they had for that area. When they launched this study, they were assuming that commercial development and industrial development would largely be out toward I-25. This kind of land use pattern may not be something they would want to see in that area, personally he felt that way. The alignment seemed to provide an additional barrier through the northeast and downtown. The proposed Planning & Zoning Board Meeting October 5, 1992 Page 7 bikeway connection between the Conifer area and downtown along Linden Street at an intersection that currently was not designated to have a traffic light, bicycle traffic trying to cross this night have a very difficult time. Finally, if the ultimate solution that we all desired was the northerly alignment, it was a very expensive interim solution. He still thought they need to spend the money for the northern alignment somewhere down the road, it seemed it would behoove them to try to keep their cost down and not spend on interim solutions. He was not convinced the northern solution would really take fifteen to twenty years. It seemed that if it was something that we really want we could have something in the northern area that would suffice, perhaps not in the final form we need it as far as lane numbers and final alignment considerations. It seems that they should be able to do something in less that ten years before the current Highway 14 along Riverside completely gridlocks. Earl Wilkinson, one of the majority committee members believed they were charged with finding a solution. The solution that was found, as Linda pointed out, 99% of what was done was agreed on with the consensus of the whole committee, the realignment of Lemay, the overpass over Vine and railroad they were in agreement on. The only area of disagreement was from Lemay over to College. The thinking as he relates to it, the majority opinion, was that this was not the final solution and he believed the report states that this was an interim solution. They were faced of the problem of potential gridlock on Riverside and Jefferson Street by the year 2000 and this problem had to be addressed. It was addressed in the manner in which the future planning of the northeast area, the plan of going over through College as an interim could be put in then to a master plan of the area and would serve as a portion of the street system. By the year 2015 or 2020, with the effort of the City and the County to accomplish it, they felt that they could have a road north of Douglas Road that would be a true bypass at that time, but to try to accomplish that before the year 2000 and get $50,000,000 out of the state just did not seem feasible. What they were trying to establish was a plan that would work out to an overall plan in the future and yet act as an intermediate plan to solve the problem we were faced with in the next eight to ten years. Lester Linton, on the committee representing the Chamber of Commerce, stated they spent eight months studying in great detail traffic and land use patterns in the northeast area. Like everyone had said 99% of what they came up with was consensus. Before they started the process, some of the background he had heard was that a northeast area bypass was a solution looking for a problem. What they found going through this process was that we do have a problem and within the next five to eight years, we are going to be in gridlock at Jefferson and Riverside and we need to do something quickly to alleviate those problems. Whether it be a short term solution, an interim solution, whether the final solution was north of Douglas Road, he did not think we could get the solution north of Douglas Road done in the next five to eight years, obviously he was on the majority opinion. If we could, that would be fine, we really need to do something and do it quickly to alleviate the traffic problems in that portion of town. CLOSE PUBLIC INPUT Member Walker spoke on his views as a committee member. The thing that struck him was all the issues other than the bypass, that was mentioned were agreed upon and he thought they present a good vision on what should be done to address some of the transportation issues in the northeast area. As is shown on the slide, what they tried to do on that was determined how Planning & Zoning Board Meeting October 5, 1992 Page 8 they were going to arrange a street network and provide complementary bike paths, pedestrian ways. He thought they had a pretty good vision of that. The other thing about the bypass issue was that it was almost an externality, in a sense, that they were dealing with. The northern bypass would be a way for people to completely scoot around Fort Collins who probably don't want to be in Fort Collins anyway, they were just going through because that was the way to get to Laramie. When you look at the alternatives to deal with this issue, the thing that struck him was that either the second or the third alternative, one that sort of bi-sected the Andersonville/Alta Vista area, or the other one that went around to the north of those areas sort of bi-sected that area from Country Club. The concern he has about those was how they fit into the overall grid that they were working with. In other words, if the northern by-pass were built, would infrastructure that they put in either alternative two or alternative three be something that then could be used by the City for its internal circulation. Were they just building this because they were dealing with an externality or were they building it because it would solve some problem that was internal to the City. His opinion was that he questioned either of those alternatives as accomplishing that. If they get this northern bypass built, either two or three, and all the truck traffic all of a sudden was out of town, what did they have left with the other two alternatives. Did they have something that was viable to our internal city transportation network. That was a question that he did not get satisfactorily answered. He felt that if they were going to, you do need some kind or route around to solve this immediate problem. He would like to see money spent that solve some of the internal problems and not just deal with the external problem that seemed to be driving this whole bypass issue. He would like to see something that would enhance the circulation in the northeast area, long after we have built this road and bypass. That sort of said that he was not sure that any of these solutions are workable. It was a major concern that he has had throughout this process and he felt that it never got satisfactorily answered. Chairman Strom noted for Mr. Ensdorff, that his sense was that the best case situation for the northern bypass was a long way off in terms of traffic demand and justifying the kind of expenditure. Relative to competing projects for transportation dollars, was he on track with that, did he see any way that a northern bypass was going to jump up the priority scale and justify $50,000,000. Mr. Ensdorff replied he did not think that they got to the specifics of cost funding the long range alternative and that was a facility north of Douglas Road at a minimum of two miles north of Douglas Road. That number was high, maybe it was 50 maybe it was less than that, but many millions of dollars. Overall it was going to be tough to fund any of these, be it the $10,000,000 to do improvements on the existing alignment, which was something the consultant did provide a cost estimate. That would include providing a Lemay realignment at the same time. That scenario would need to come from the City because the State would not participate in that realignment, because it would not have any function on the state highway system, that was alternative one. Alternative three, the other alternative that the committee had proposed, the majority opinion was, 14.6 million dollars. Again, that money would be hard to come by. As an example, they just finished the process this year of prioritizing transportation projects in our region, through the state process. Fort Collins area probably would see somewhere around in 1993, out of that process, less than $2,000,000 to be spent in the Fort Collins area on existing needed projects. Be it the new bridge over the Poudre River and a couple other projects. The point he was trying to make was that it was going to be difficult to do any of these things. His interpretation of the majority and minority opinion was, there was more Planning & Zoning Board Meeting October 5, 1992 Page 9 projected traffic on alternative three than alternative one. It has the potential to build abetter case when it was competing with other projects at a state level and it was going to be a project that they were going to need to compete at a state level to try to secure funding. Any way they go it was going to be an incremental approach and there was not going to be a 14 or 10 or $50,000,000 bundle of money come our way, it was going to have to be incremental. Chairman Strom asked when he said an incremental approach, could he give him some idea of what they were talking about. With the exception of alternative one, which of course you could improve 50 feet at a time, anything that goes off of existing right-of-way and existing improvements, it looks to him like they either have very big increments or they don't accomplish anything with them. Mr. Ensdorff replied alternative one could be built in phases, you could do one intersection and pieces of others, it could be done that way. Alternative three, or, the bypass north of Douglas Road, would have to be done in increments where you pool funds when you get enough for a workable system. You were not talking about doing a little stretch or something with those two. You would have to hopefully get the commitment to the project and then acquire funding over a period of time and accumulate it, be doing preliminary and final engineering, environmental assessments and things like that to get to the point where you have a pool of money where you could start doing some work. Maybe the great separation over Lemay could be built initially and that could function and then as you pool more money you could build the rest of the road, . but alternative three and the longer range one that was discussed, it definitely would have to be a situation where you accumulate money in a pool with a total fund of money to actually build something. Chairman Strom stated he really saw the minority approach to this as being an all or nothing on the northern bypass. From what he has seen in his report and from what he has described to them both here today and at worksession, his great fear is that they end up with nothing. Because the northern bypass was so expensive and attracts so little traffic, relatively speaking, that they spend another 25 years and end up back here in the same situation of having to go back and restudy because the numbers and the dollars do not balance out and justify the northern bypass even 20 years down the road. That was his concern with saying they were not going to do anything now because anything they do now was going to delay the northern bypass and his concern was that not doing something now still left them without the northern bypass. Mr. Ensdorff replied that was a very important part of why the committee voted the way they did. He offered them to express their opinions on how that related to their opinion. Chairman Strom asked for the indulgence of the Board and asked someone from the minority side to explore that issue with him. Mel Schaumberger stated the minority opinion basically felt that it was better to do nothing than do something wrong. The consultants informed them that the State would be forced to do something with Highway 14 in eight to twelve years because of the traffic flows. Their view was why should we give them an alternative that really was not in the best interest of the City, which was a very short term alternative. They thought it better if it was going to break, to let it break and then fix it properly rather than incrementaly end up with two roads over time when one road would do the same job. That was the minority opinion's philosophy. They felt that anyone who has looked at the corner of Lemay and Mulberry between 3 and 5 O'Clock Planning & Zoning Board Meeting October 5, 1992 Page 10 in the evening, don't want that type of intersection in their subdivision. He thought there were alternatives that represent better planning than that type of facility. Chairman Strom asked if they recognized that Mulberry and Lemay was a problem, his sense of what they were looking at with alternative three was a more free flowing kind of a system. You certainly would not have the kind of left turn problems that we have today with heavy truck traffic and the delays there. Mr. Schaumberger replied that maybe you would not have the same kind of problems but you certainly would have the same volume of traffic. That was their concern, primarily the truck traffic. They believe the infrastructure of the City should be developed to handle the internal car, auto and truck traffic. They do not believe that the infrastructure should be built to handle the eighteen wheeler traffic that is troublesome to everyone. The downtown business folks would like to get the eighteen wheelers off of the downtown streets and they would like to keep them off of their subdivision streets. Chairman Strom replied that was perfectly understandable, but he was still left with the question of whether or not the State would bite on a northern bypass, or whether they would come back in eight to ten years when it was broken and then be in a position of facing a situation where they had proceeded with a variety of different developments and continuing development and that close in corridor situation and being faced with an expensive, punch it through there situation, where additional residents would have moved in even closer to the corridor and we still don't have the justification for it for a northern bypass and so we do some other kind of compromise situation. He understands the concerns that they have and if he honestly thought that they could move up the priority on the northern bypass and had some reasonable hope of succeeding with it, he would be pretty quick to jump in their corner, but right now he was struggling. Mr. Schaumberger replied there was a lot of speculation from the committee and here tonight on what the State would or would not do. He thought that making a decision in the absence of concrete information from the State was probably the wrong thing to do. This dialogue needed to be engaged with the State and see what they would and would not do. You could always point out that LaPorte obtained a bypass and they have a lot less traffic flow there than they have in Fort Collins. There were other alternative reasons why they got their bypass but the State was amiable to that proposal. He thought for them to speculate that they would not accept it, so therefore we should discard, it was a wrong approach to take. Chairman Strom asked if he was suggesting they really needed to put this on hold for a few months or weeks. Mr. Schaumberger replied it had been opened since 1968, so a few more months or weeks was not going to cause problems. They need to know what the State would do. They have some new legislation, called ISTEA legislation, he was on the National Transportation Board. He has had some intense discussions and environmental concerns including the human environment were taking higher priority than highway planning. He thought the City should take advantage of the new legislation and not just discard this because three years ago they would have rejected it. They may no longer reject it. They just think that they need to be an intensive partner to discussions before a decisions be made. • Planning & Zoning Board Meeting October 5, 1992 Page I Chairman Strom suggested kicking it back to the committee and ask the committee to talk to the State. Mr. Schaumberger replied he would be willing to do that, he could not speak for the committee. Member Walker stated that a lot of the issues were external truck traffic. If we got into sort of a do nothing decision and get grid locked and the City complains to the State that we have got this big mess, what were the State alternatives. Will they all of a sudden spring for some money then. Were they going to make some decree that trucks have to be routed a different way. What were the options the State would look at if we were to get into a grid lock situation and the City complains loudly to the state. This to him was the root of the problem. Mr. Ensdorff replied he had mentioned a couple of options they might have. He thought it was extremely important to remember that there was a scarcity of funds for major highway projects and for Mr. Schaumberger, they were very familiar with ISTEA, in fact ISTEA might tell them that they would have a difficult time building any road in Fort Collins because we were in a non -attainment area and ISTEA, the National Federal Transportation Legislation, would look very dimly on them building any new roadway capacity as long as they have air quality problems. That was an issue they have to deal with regardless of where they go. It was a difficult solution and they had seen the report and they have heard the committee members' different opinions of taking information and what they should do with it. He thought the State would be in a very difficult position of trying to figure out what to do. The Council wanted to take a pro -active approach for the City to take the incentive to find something that would work, that this community could get behind and try to get something done and that was the intent of the study. The do nothing approach at this time, as we get ten years down the road, maybe if the traffic projections do not pan out the way and it was not as bad as they thought, maybe it was worse, the state would look at some remedial things as inexpensive as they possibly could at some of the intersections. He was not sure if they could require the trucks to use a different route because 14 and 287 were State Highways and he did not believe the State had the option of limiting trucks on those State routes. He thought that could be not a real attractive option they could use. What we were really looking to do was mandate types of things and try to get by, we have got to do something. Member Collier had some questions about do nothing versus alternative three. Do nothing, was that interpreted to mean alternative one. Mr. Ensdorff replied no, one means doing something, alternative one improves intersections on the existing route and has the potential with the traffic projections defined, that would last from eight to ten years. Last means the traffic flow would be acceptable for the next eight to ten years. It also includes making the Lemay realignment which is a City policy now that they should be trying to do. It was included in that package. That was a local street improvement as a part of that package but it was a way to address what the committee found when they got public input out there, that it was a major concern. That would include a great separation over the railroad tracks. Member Collier asked for clarification, was alternative one the majority viewpoint. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting October 5, 1992 Page 12 Mr. Ensdorff replied that one was the minority opinion and three was the majority opinion. Three was a facility that puts the relocation of 14 on the Lemay realignment with an overpass but then connects that Lemay improvement to College to provide a downtown bypass. It was not a City bypass, it is a downtown bypass. The committee agreed that there needed to be a longer term solution. As a transportation planner, he would not agree with the term, short term for a 20-25 year improvement. The committee had come to that kind of definition and so that was what they were hearing in this report. This was a 20-25 year option, a 20-25 year road that would provide relief to the Riverside/Jefferson alignment. Both of these concepts, one and three, the committee believes in the longer term. The minority believes that in the 10 year period we should be actively pursing and building a facility north of Douglas Road, that was acquiring right-of-way and within ten years try to have that facility finished. The majority opinion besides this improvement also includes a Douglas Road alignment, but their version was that they think that this will suffice for traffic flow for the next 20-25 years and that immediately we should be working with the County to dedicate or reserve right-of-way for the realignment north of Douglas Road so that in that period of time in the future if we need a facility out there, we have the land and we can start working toward whatever process we want to use to build it and fund it, be it accumulating funds or whatever it was going to take. They both include those, but they approach the timing issue differently. Member Collier stated what she was struggling with was that it seemed that you could apply Bernie's question to either alternative. if they settle for alternative one, do they get anything more. If they settle for alternative three, were they going to get anything more. Mr. Ensdorff asked, anything more than what we have now? Member Cottier replied yes, neither of them get them any closer to the optimum of the northern bypass and with that in mind, it seemed that they should spend the minimum amount of money if in fact it was the consensus that everyone wanted to work toward and make sure they have a clear plan laid out at this point to work toward that northern bypass. She saw benefits and pros and cons, for all alternatives at this point and if they did want to get to the northern bypass, what was the best way to get there and neither alternative one or three seemed to. Mr. Ensdorff replied he did not want to speak for the committee members, he would try to interpret that He thought one of the key issues was buildability. There were questions about that. The State has looked at this issue many times, and the facility becomes more buildable as it gets closer to the City because the closer it gets to the City, the more traffic it carries. Therefore it could be justified to spend those kinds of funds. That was a concern, as you get it closer to the City, you get more traffic. It starts generating more impacts, and impacts neighborhoods and that was probably the crunch here and if you put it right north of Douglas Road, and as the numbers they try to generate indicate, it was going to have so little traffic that it was going to be very hard to justify spending that kind of money in the foreseeable future. He was not saying it was impossible, and he did not want to create that impression. He thought the minority members would tell them, let's go see. In this study process, what they believe, staff and the consultant, indicated to the committee was that the numbers were going to be so low that it was going to be very hard to justify the money out there. In the case alternative three, the traffic projection numbers on building that facility and having it in place in five years, it carries a significant amount of traffic. It would relieve almost all truck traffic in the current alignment. Yes, it would be going through another part of the City, but it would be realigning it out of the downtown. It did achieve a step in that direction. It did not get to the 20 year future but the majority opinion also says that there needs to be an immediate Planning & Zoning Board Meeting October 5, 1992 Page 13 process to start reserving right-of-way someplace else. The committee looked at realignments north of Douglas Road. They looked at a lot of different alignments, starting with Owl Canyon and a lot of other places. They looked at a lot of different alternatives and as they sorted through those, they found that these were the most buildable, to get something going right away, be it number one or three. Chairman Strom asked if they found a northern alignment. Mr. Ensdorff replied he did not think they did. There did not seem to be a workable solution right now, that did not mean there wasn't one, the topography, the takes, there were alot of difficulties and it was going to take some work to try and find something. There would be impact there too and he thought no one in the committee was telling them that was the case and he sure was not. It was a difficult question, but there was a need to do something. Member Walker stated Mr. Ensdorff mentioned if they took the alternative three and put it in in five years, he did not want to get into an issue of priorities in terms of traffic issues in the City and funding sources and priorities. In other words, if this was in the mix, what do we have to do in the City in the next five years in traffic. Where in their opinion would the money come from and was this the City's number one traffic concern in the next five to ten years. Mr. Ensdorff replied that the City did come up with a list of projects that they recommended, a couple of long term and some short term projects as a recommendation. It was in their information that they received. Major projects that the committee felt should be moved ahead, improvements on North College, curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Second was to insure that the Choices 95 Timberline project was completed all the way to Summitview and not the current Choices 95 project as defined from Prospect to Summitview, but the preliminary engineering that was being done now was indicating that the funds coming into Choices 95 might be somewhat insufficient to take it all the way there and the committee felt that it was important as a priority to make sure that happens. The third thing on the major project list was to start to do something on the expressway, the bypass and that was in this proposal. Since the majority approved alternative three, that was what ended up there. If that were changed that would then end up to be alternative one. The committee looked at projects and found some existing situations that the City should prioritize and also at the same time try to move ahead with this improvement. As far as the rest of the City, the Lemay realignment, based on the fact that it has been a City desire for almost ten years now, and the information that they heard from citizens out there specifically about railroad impacts, he would say that in some way, the Lemay facility needed to built in the near future, which would include an overpass. He thought that it would compete with any City project and be high on the list. Other City projects, some of the most needed ones were being addressed with Choices 95, but he was sure that with another round of review of capital projects would identify a multitude of projects that could continue on with the Choices 95 type of capital improvements. He did not think they lack for more priority projects. Right now he could not tell them that there was a waiting list out there. There were some left over from the Choices 95 process in 1987, 88 and 89, so there is a ready list of projects. Member Walker asked Mr. Ensdorff, for their information, to give them a source of funding that might come if they were to build alternative three. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting October 5, 1992 Page 14 Mr. Ensdorff replied that Alternative three, would be the redesignation of Colorado 14. They would strive very hard to have the State and Colorado Department of Transportation fund that. He has an expectation they would cover most of the cost of that facility. He would suspect that they would ask us to share in that, us being the City and the County and he thinks we should consider that but we would look very hard because it was a State Highway. Some of the areas that we would probably like to see and they would ask us to pay for would be landscaping, underpasses, possible bicycle underpasses or some other things that would be a benefit to the City. He thought they would try very hard to get most of the money from the State. Member Carroll stated that in reading through the report, he was very pleased with the findings and, the areas the committee has into, the fact that a majority and a minority report were presented without reaching some sort of a consensus that everyone could agree with but nobody agreed with. He liked to see different approaches taken and he must say that he was presently surprised. When this study was first announced, it seemed to him it was the twenty- third out of the following twenty-two studies of this particular area that would go on the shelve or people would look at it. He was very pleasantly surprised with the recommendations and findings to back those up. He starts with the premise that there is a problem now and it has to be remedied now. The traffic, especially the truck traffic, but also automobile traffic which was going through Riverside/Jefferson Street and going through out on North College Avenue he thought needed to be addressed right away. He would also point out that this was a problem that has been studied now for 25 years and in the last 25 years it has only become worse. It was not something that someone a few months ago said gee would it not be nice if we looked at this and there was concern all along. The problem has to be addressed for the traffic through downtown. He thought Council, in looking at this, needed to look at it in other than just strictly a transportation aspect. There were many other policies that the City has that are equally important with transportation. Air Quality was a very important one. The number of stop lights that vehicles strike as they move along the Riverside Corridor was enormous and as these vehicles stop and start back up again, the air pollution was certainly not being helped to any degree. Any person who deals with transportation would tell you that a vehicle which moves without stopping was going to create less pollution than a vehicle who starts and stops a number of times. The routing of traffic along this, which was suggested by alternative one, to him has an extremely chilling effect on development, again from a land use standpoint, for the Jefferson Corridor. The intersection of Jefferson and Linden at one time was the center of the Fort Collins community. As Jefferson traffic increased, that intersection has lost its viability for the development of land, either publicly or privately to the north of Jefferson Street in areas where tracks are going to be abandoned if the railroad realignment takes place. He did not think it was feasible again with the enormous amount of traffic proceeding down Jefferson. The revitalization and development of downtown was an important City policy as was the development and revitalization of North College, which to him, could not be fulfilled by the continuation of traffic through this corridor. It seemed to him that some of the policies would be helped by simply making that a rapid flow corridor by giving a large amount of time at traffic lights to people proceeding along the route they take now be increasing the speed limit. That would help air quality, but it certainly would not help the redevelopment of Jefferson. It would probably exacerbate or speed up the falling apart of the buildings that are along Jefferson very close to Linden Street. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting October 5, 1992 Page 15 As far as looking at Douglas Road, to him that was probably where people were about 10 or 15 years ago when they were looking at a bypass and they were saying well we need to do more studies, we need to look at this, we need to look at that. He has a real concern from the comments that he heard, assuming we put in the northern bypass today, north of Douglas Road, that it would alleviate a good deal of the truck traffic. He hears the reports saying that the small volume of traffic that would take that bypass won't justify it's construction at this time, which tells him that a number of vehicles would not use it. It was too far north, it would not tie into the LaPorte bypass which had already been built. He was not sure that it would alleviate the problem if it was built. He came to Fort Collins in 1973, which was almost 20 years ago. If someone would have said, in 20 years, that thing would be built, it is 20 years and we are still talking about it, nothing has been done and he saw very easily that we could go out to 2012, 2015 and nothing could be done. He saw what happened was that the existing corridor was going to get totally jammed up, his recommendation was that City Council do something and they do it right away because a report such as this would become outdated fairly quickly as houses continue to be built. One reason that he would recommend to City Council that alternative plan three be built was because it gets the truck traffic off of Jefferson and Riverside and he was not in favor of improving the intersections at Riverside and Mulberry and Jefferson and College to basically make it a high speed or a through corridor for vehicles to take that route. The second reason was that both the majority and the minority was recommending that the Lemay bypass be built around Buckingham to Lemay Avenue. There was a consensus on that, in fact unaniminity. That was about 60% of the bypass and then what we were talking about was simply continuing that bypass from Lemay to College. He saw no particular reason why that should not be done at this time instead of wait on a what if, what could be and if it will be won't answer the problem on northern bypass. The primary reason he saw for not doing it was that the Lemay bypass as constructed under alternative one, will continue to carry basically Fort Collins traffic and they would not see trucks and motor vehicles proceed to Laramie on that road. In his opinion it was a balancing test that they have to take and he was not persuaded that the impact, especially to the Lindenwood and Country Club neighborhoods, would be enough to not justify that leg from Lemay to College being built. He did not dispute that there would be some impact. When ever you are doing anything like this, one has to weigh the alternatives and he would submit for City Council's review the situation of Harmony Road, which is an extremely busy road. They see today, homes being built all along Harmony Road, from Boardwalk out to Timberline, with people accepting Harmony Road with the intense travel that exists on it. It was not as heavy a traffic highway but again in looking at the balancing in the needs of the entire City, the fact that there is a necessity to get traffic off of Riverside and Jefferson and the Lemay bypass everybody is suggesting, he thought, it incumbent that the Council move ahead with something at this point. Put this 25 year old issue to bed and he would support Council adopting alternative three. Mr. Carroll moved to recommend to City Council that they accept the recommendations of this committee, which includes alternative three of the bypass, and in doing so he did not mean to down play the other recommendations, which he thought were pretty close to in importance. Member Klataske seconded the motion. His reason for seconding was given the alternatives, he believed this was better than holding out for the State to do something and still with the recommendation that City Council would see what the State would do as far as a bypass perhaps further north before this was committed to funding. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting October 5, 1992 Page 16 Member Walker commented that in spite of the comments made, we needed to move ahead on something here. He thought there was a lot of work put into this report and there were obviously differences on this crucial issue; however, the work done suggests that we were trying to choose among the best of a group of alternatives without one optimum that just pops out except this northern bypass and so he felt that we did need to make some progress on this thing and continue this debate and that we have discussed the issue and raised questions. He hoped City Council would consider them carefully and perhaps it would sharpen their debate on this. Member Cottier stated she supported recommending that Council adopt all the recommendations in this. She did not know how to vote on the motion, she would like to say that she supported alternative one over alternative three. She wished there was a more minimal solution than that, something that did not cost that much money. In actual cost, there was not a whole lot of difference. She was disappointed that there was not something that could be done for less than $10,000,000 that would help the problem. She did think that Lemay bypass should be done. Initially her perspective was just get the trucks out of downtown. She thought that where she was ending up now was she thought there was more harm putting them farther north because of the fear that nothing additional would be done. She thought Joe's point about alternative three really accomplished something for improving North College was only half of what would actually happen, because the area of North College that really needed a lot of attention was also further north, so putting this much increased traffic around Conifer did not help the area of North College at all. She thought that highways did not make good neighbors and it was easier to rationalize them in a commercial area than it was in a heavier residential area. She supported the work of the committee and thought there had been a lot of really good planning done. She personally would go for alternative one rather than alternative three. Member Carroll added that at worksession he asked, if alternative three was adopted, what the projection was for attaching alternative three to the LaPorte bypass already built and was told that College Avenue was the boundary of the study so that was not discussed; however, he also asked whether it was topographically, geologically possible to do that and the answer was yes, so his hope would be that if alternative three was built, that someday it would then be continued onto the LaPorte bypass, which would then benefit North College Avenue and Highway 287 to that point, but then again, who knows when. Chairman Strom stated he would support the motion and he was not sure whether it was pessimistic or whether he was a pragmatist. Key things were, for one he was not confident that any time in the short range, six, eight, or even 15 years into the future we were going to be anywhere close to justifying the northern bypass and so he saw a continuation and a worsening of a problem. The other key factor was that he thought the Lemay realignment was very important. He thought it was a real high priority and he thought that choosing alternative three facilitates that, whereas choosing alternative one leaves that open to question, given you have to have two funding sources in order to do that. The one suggestion he would make along with supporting the motion was that in the process of design of this facility, assuming we could move ahead and we could get something done, that we try to make it as free flowing a route as possible and not end up with stop light after stop light, which ends up to be an air quality problem and exacerbates a noise problem. The motion passed 4-1 with Member Cottier voting no, and supporting everything in the report except alternative three, she supports alternative one. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting October 5, 1992 Page 17 Member Cottier stated she was 100% behind the key findings and the study and supported alternative one with respect to the northeast arterial. GLENMOOR PUD - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL 030-84B Kirsten Whetstone, Project Planner gave the staff report recommending approval with conditions. Member Walker asked about a Homeowners Association. On the plans he has not seen any reference to covenants or listing of covenants or mention of Homeowners Association. Ms. Whetstone replied that the Land Development Guidance System, requires a Homeowners Association beset up prior to the issuance of the first building permit. The requirements about the fencing and some of the other things mentioned are a requirement of the Planned Unit Development, and are on the Plans. Member Walker stated he did not see any on the plans right now, that was his concern and this was a preliminary and final. Ms. Whetstone replied there were requirements on the landscape plan that show the limits of the allowable fencing and height and the kind of materials that were required on the fencing. Member Walker stated he was more concerned about the issue of where it was spelled out that the Homeowners Association would be provided and also stipulations on storage in back of the units. Mr. Steve Jarecki for Bluewater Development, stated they had already agreed in writing to the Planning Department regarding the establishment of the Homeowners Association. His understanding was that documentation needed to be submitted as part of the Development Agreement. He did indicate on the landscape plan the limits of the fencing and the limits of the height of the fencing and some other items the Planning Department was concerned about. Mr. Jarecki stated this project was a compromise for them from the word go. It was clear to him the neighbors wanted single family homes. This was, a compromise between the two positions. RL zoning at 6 units per acre with of an 18 unit figure to work with opposed to 80 points on the LDGS with a 24 unit figure to work with. They wound up with a 20 unit project. Mr. Jarecki spoke on affordable housing and the study and the need for 3 and 4 bedroom single family units. Mr. Jarecki stated there was no common area with this project, it is more like a single family neighborhood rather than a condominium, in that the front yards and back yards and the real estate under the units will be owned. Mr. Jarecki went through slides of the surrounding areas. Member Walker stated the need for the covenants as he suggested for things such as maintenance or coordinating painting or what have you, he had the same question regarding the land outside the 40 foot fenced area. His concern was that all the fences had to be gated so they won't just be ignored but yet it seemed the same issues about common maintenance on Planning & Zoning Board Meeting October 5, 1992 Page 18 the building would apply to the area behind the fences and his question was, should there not be some covenant to the effect of how that land would be managed by the Association or why not deed that strip to the Association and have it maintained. His concern was that you get a hodge podge of open space and different kinds of maintenance. He was not sure that was such a good idea. Mr. Jarecki replied that fencing was an issue they spent considerable time on. The project was designed to be similar to a single family neighborhood. The reason not to dedicate this area to the Homeowners Association was that the design was for moderate income. Dedicated open space, common to individual use requires horrendous insurance policies instead of just going after a single homeowner, now you have 20 of them for the attorneys to attack. The blanket liability policies go way up. When possible, they eliminate any common area from the site to keep the Association Dues down and payments affordable. The 40 foot fence actually came as a suggestion from Planning, their feeling was that it would get used. The homeowner could use it as a garden or it could remain a semi-public open space. The major concern with the back yards seemed to be, was that they not become narrow shaded dog runs. The City did not want the responsibility for the 15 ft strip either. Maintenance of the area could be handled through covenants. Member Walker's concern was that he did not have the set of covenants before him to be able to decide if he is satisfied that these are covered. Member Walker asked Ms. Whetstone if it was part of the submittal. Ms. Whetstone replied it was not part of the submittal. The PUD requirements would regulate fencing and the typical requirements on landscaping and as far as the maintenance, this was seen as similar to a single family project. The units are attached and individually owned. Typically we don't get a copy of the covenants with single family subdivisions, at the time of the Planning and Zoning Board approval. Sherry Albertson -Clark, Chief Planner, also clarified that in the Land Development Guidance System, if there is a Homeowners Association the developer must set forth any requirements or covenants in order to establish that Homeowners Association before any of the residences are sold. The City does not require any type of submittal documentation to confirm that the covenants were established nor do we review those covenants. Member Collier asked for clarification on the fence. Ms. Whetstone replied that there were no fences required except for the 10 foot section between the private patios. Member Cottier asked what the depth was beyond the 40 feet for most of the parcels. Mr. Jarecki replied the minimum back set back, rear of the building to the back lot line and he believed it was a minimum of 65 feet. Some of them are 150 or close to that figure, but the closest building was plotted 70-75 feet from the existing back lot line. Even a 40 foot fence in that area would have in the neighborhood of 30 feet of green between it and the existing back fences. Member Cottier asked if that was the area where the existing path was • Planning & Zoning Board Meeting October 5, 1992 Page 19 Mr. Jarecki replied that the existing bike path actually pretty much exists close to the south property boundary and is not in the 30' green area. Member Cottier said it would seem preferable to have the bike path go through the rear open space than be along the public sidewalk. Mr. Jarecki, replied he agreed and he had proposed it and it came right back to him, no way. The real problem with it was, as you start to get fencing in the backyards, with the existing fencing the replanting of shrubs for the buffer areas, they were creating, a possible tunnel down there and especially if you get kids in it after dark. It was not as safe as getting the kids in front of the houses. PUBLIC INPUT None. Member Walker stated he was satisfied with the testimony as stated by the applicant. Because of the nature of these kinds of units, you have to have these common maintenance agreements. It seemed like a reasonable project. • Member Walker moved for approval of Glenmoor PUD, Preliminary and Final with conditions as stated by Staff. Member Carroll seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. SILVER OAKS PUD PRELIMINARY - #14-88F Ted Shepard, Senior Planner gave the Staff report recommending approval. Rick Armistead, representing Tri-Trend, Inc., stated they recently completed Rossborough Subdivision. They felt that Silver Oaks Overall Development Plan and Subdivision had come together nicely. They spent alot of time trying to meet City criteria and the needs of the surrounding neighborhood. They have had two neighborhood meetings concerning the Silver Oaks and they have ongoing talks with the affected neighbors to the north in a County subdivision. They were trying to make that transition as smooth as possible from the existing larger lots to their City lots. They have had with talks with the principal of Olander Elementary School on some of the needs of the affected school children and if they would overload the elementary school system, and the principal has assured the parents that he would be able to absorb the children. Tri-Trend feels they had been through the process and they are trying to address all the needs. Dick Rutherford, Stewart Engineering, stated he would like to point out after the first item on tonight's agenda, solar orientation, they have 72.6% which exceeds the minimum required and one of the reasons this has happened was that they have an east west street that would also be developed and the fact that it was how the sewer and water got to Olander School from Taft 01 Hill. When they went to develop this plan they had to pretty much use that as the street intersection but they were still able to come up with 72.6%. Planning & Zoning Board Meeting October 5, 1992 Page 20 Member Carroll asked if this project just laid out or did they have to work to achieve the solar orientation on this project or was this the way the street system would have been laid out had we had not solar orientation. Mr. Rutherford replied they had to do some working at it. The first plan they had did not come up to the 65%. Mr. Rutherford went on to say that they had lots of meetings regarding the school. Most of the discussion at neighborhood meetings was not regarding the plan so much as it was regarding the school use. After they were able to come with an ODP that was acceptable to the Staff and your Board, they were able to fit those things in very well. PUBLIC INPUT None. Member Carroll moved for approval of Silver Oaks P.U.D., Preliminary and with the comment that he was very pleased that there were 144 lots, 72.6% did meet the solar orientation. He thought the Ordinance could work. Member Cottier seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. OTHER BUSINESS None. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.