HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/21/19910
0
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
October 21,1991
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board began at 6:35 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members
present included Chairman Bernie Strom, Lloyd Walker, Jim Klataske, Joe Carroll, Laurie
O'Dell, and Renee Clements -Cooney. Board member Jan Cottier was absent.
Staff members present include Planning Director Tom Peterson, Assistant Planning Director
Joe Frank, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Steve Olt, Kirsten Whetstone, Kerrie Ashbeck, Deputy City
Attorney Paul Eckman, and City Transportation Director Rick Ensdorff, and Georgiana
Taylor.
Mr. Peterson presented the Consent Agenda which included: Item 1 -Minutes of the August 26,
1991 meeting; Item 2-Helmshire House PUD, Amended Preliminary and Final, 030-83E;Item
3 - Fairbrooke PUD, 5th Filing, Amended Final, #65-825; Item 4, which was pulled for
discussion, PFA Special Review, County Referral, #44-91; Item 5, which was continued to the
November meeting, PZ91-13, Vacation of Utility Easement; and Item 6-PZ91-14 Vacation of
Utility and Drainage Easement.
Mr. Peterson presented the Discussion Agenda which consisted of: Item 7 - Country Club
Corners PUD, Final, #72-84C; Item 8, which was continued to the November 18 meeting, East
Side/West Side Rezonings; Item 9 - Recommendation to City Council on Adoption of Solar
Orientation Standards and incentives in the Land Development Guidance System and
Subdivision Regulations, #38-91,and; Item 10 -Fort Collins Area Transportation Plan, #45-91.
Chairman Strom asked if there were any Consent items that the Board or members of the
audience wished to pull for discussion. There were no items pulled for discussion.
Member O'Dell moved to approve Consent Agenda items 1, 2, 3, and 6. Member Clements -
Cooney seconded the motion.
The motion to approve carried 6-0.
PFA SPECIAL REVIEW -COUNTY REFERRAL-#44-91
Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a description of the proposed special review recommending
approval to Larimer County with the condition that no development or use of the property
occur until the alignment problems of the Overland Trail/Vine Drive intersection, as identified
in the Traffic Impact Analysis, are corrected. She distributed a letter from Ann Spetlick, a
resident of West Vine Drive, who requested that a traffic signal be installed at that
intersection. She stated that she also received a telephone call from an area resident who stated
that they had concerns with the current traffic and safety situation at that intersection and
they also requested a traffic signal.
Member Walker asked Mr. Ensdorff to discuss the traffic situation at the Overland Trail/Vine
Drive intersection and to give more detail on the alignment.
Rick Ensdorff, City Transportation Director, stated that the northbound road and the east/west
road at Overland Trail was offset which caused a safety problem. He stated that this was an
existing problem and not brought about by this proposal. A traffic signal would assist
east/west traffic problems but would not assist with the north/south problems. He stated that
the best solution would be to realign the north/south and east/west roads.
Member Walker asked if installing a light at that intersection would be a reasonable alternative.
Mr. Ensdorff stated that this would deal with the north/south problem or the east/west problem
but would not solve the problem without realigning the streets.
Member Klataske asked if a four-way stop would alleviate the problem.
Mr. Ensdorff replied that this would alleviate the problem at the intersection but would cause
some drivers to run the stop sign. The four-way stop could be assisted by flashing lights
warning of the stop. Currently a traffic signal was not warranted at this time.
Chairman Strom asked if there was enough right-of-way there to physically install the
realignment.
Mr. Ensdorff stated that this would require a right-of-way acquisition and would be costly.
Member O'Dell asked if the warranting for four-way stops entails site distance and site
distance problems.
Mr. Ensdorff stated that stop signs do entail site distance and site distance problems. The stop
signs currently in place on Vine Drive for east/west traffic deal with the significant site
distance problems.
Gene Chantler, PFA Division Chief, 201 Remington, gave a brief history of the site for the
training facility. He stated that in their discussion with the County Planning Department, the
restriction that the facility could not be developed until the realignment was corrected
presented significant problems for the Fire Department. The realignment had been denied
twice for federal hazard elimination grants and was not in the County's five year plan. He
stated that the traffic count had increased by 2,000 vehicles in the last two years. The solution
that was offered at the County Planning Commission meeting was a light that could be
controlled by the Fire Department because the site distance was so poor that there was
significant concern as far as the safety of the fire department vehicles crossing Vine Drive.
Member Carroll asked if it was alright for the PFA to install a light or was this the lesser of
two evils.
Mr. Chantler stated that the Fire Department's preference would be to have a light. He stated
that their concern was for their safety and the safety of the community.
Chairman Strom asked if a four-way stop would accomplish the same affect.
Mr. Chantler stated that a four-way stop would also accommodate the situation.
Member Klataske asked why the tower would be 68 feet high.
Mr. Chantler stated that this would be five stories in height with a 10 foot penthouse. He
stated that this construction would be practical for their training purposes.
is
Karen Gabler, 3116 Overland Trail, had concerns about the cost and traffic considerations
recommended by the County Planning staff. She asked if the Traffic Engineering Department
was attempting to use the training facility to substantiate and justify its twice rejected
application for federal hazard elimination funds when there would be safer, more cost
effective alternatives. She asked who would pay for the alignment. She stated that a traffic
signal was warranted and more cost effective. She believed that a street realignment would not
solve the speeding problem on Overland Trail, the intersection at LaPorte and Overland, nor
the dangerous curves at Wagon Wheel and Bingham Hill. She believed that the realignment
would encourage the existing speeding problem and increase the potential for an accident with
Poudre Fire trucks entering onto the intersection. A traffic signal would also assist the
children crossing the intersection.
Member Walker asked for clarification of the recommendation by the County
Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that their recommendation was for a light.
Mr. Ensdorff stated that the traffic signals installed within city limits would be at the city's
expense. Traffic signals would cost about $30,000 to $40,000. A four-way stop would cost
about $100 per sign. The added flashers would cost an additional $1,000 to $1,500 each.
Member Walker asked why there currently was not signage indicating that there was a curve
ahead in the road.
Mr. Ensdorff stated that in that location, it would be difficult to give advance notice due to
trees and vegetation. Cat -tracking would be a possibility.
Member Clements -Cooney asked who would be financially responsible for the cost of a traffic
• signal, four-way stop or realignment.
Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that since this was a recommendation to Larimer County, this would
be afforded back to the Board of County Commissioners for a final decision and then they
would have the ultimate say on what would be the condition and who would be responsible for
the cost. The worst case scenario would be the Poudre Fire Authority would pay the cost or
participate in some cost sharing with the County.
Mr. Eckman stated that one of the factors involved would be the determination of whether this
intersection was already in need of assistance or whether this proposed development would
cause the intersection to require upgrading. He stated that if this development would be the
cause of the problem, then it would be reasonable to expect the developer to pay for it.
Member Walker stated that this intersection was troublesome and believed that this intersection
had been ignored. He suggested that the speed be adjusted and, if a light were installed, it
should not be controlled just by the Fire Authority but should have an auto detector or a walk
signal. He believed that a four-way stop would be the simplest and cheapest way. He believed
that this was an opportunity to address this intersection's problems.
Chairman Strom believed that it would be unnecessarily burdensome to the Fire Authority to
ask them to realign the intersection as a result of this project.
Member O'Dell concurred with Chairman Strom and believed that it would be wrong for the
Board to suggest that it must be a four-way stop. She commented that the site plan was well
buffered.
0 3
Member Walker moved to recommend approval of the PFA Special Review with the condition
that the Intersection of Overland Trail and Vine Drive be corrected as to, not only the problems
created by the Poudre Fire Authority, but site distances, speeds and the jog. He suggested some
combination of caution signal, striping, lights or stop signs.
Member O'Dell seconded the motion.
The motion to recommend approval carried 6-0.
COUNTRY CLUB CORNERS PUD FINAL - #72-84
Kirsten Whetstone gave a description of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval
with the condition that the State Highway Department grant approval of a North College
Avenue Access permit for this use. She stated that, as part of the condition, if the permit
would not be granted, the project would have to take access from Willox Lane or Bristlecone
Drive. She noted that in Section 5, under Transportation, of the Staff Report, the last sentence
should be stricken and replaced with wording that would more accurately reflect the
intersection agreement, which would be filed with this project. She stated that this was #2 on
Page Two of the agreement, which stated:
"That at such time as the Colorado Department of Highways and/or the City determines
that said full access must in the interest of public health, safety and welfare, be reduced
to a right -in right -out access intersection, that the intersection shall be modified by the
owner or any responsible successor in interest, with such modification to be completed
at the sole expense of the owner and within a reasonable time period as established by
the State or the City for completion of such modification."
Ric Hattman, Gefroh-Hattman Architects, briefly discussed the landscaping, berming and
screening, architectural materials that will match the Union Colony Bank, pedestrian accesses,
and future traffic accesses associated with the proposed Burger King restaurant.
Member Walker asked how they would obtain the permit from the Colorado Department of
Highways.
Mr. Hattman stated that they had prepared and submitted additional information to the State
and would discuss this information with them.
There was no public input for this item.
Member Clements -Cooney asked that if Burger King does not gain access off of College and
has to access off of Willox and Bristlecone, where would the existing bank access from.
Mr. Hattman stated that if this process would not be successful with the State, then the
applicant would not build at that site and the bank's access would stay where it is.
Member Walker asked if the intersection agreement would be part of this approval and asked
if it should be included in the motion.
Ms. Whetstone stated that this would be filed with this project and separately at the Courthouse.
Member Carroll moved to approve the Country Club Corners PUD Final with the condition that
a proposed North College access must be approved by the State Highway Department in the
4
form of a state highway access permit or the project must take access from Willox Lane or
Bristlecone Drive and with the additional condition that the applicant execute the intersection
agreement with the City of Fort Collins in the form which has been submitted.
Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion.
The motion to approve carried 6-0.
SUBDIVISION REGULATION #38-91
Assistant Planning Director Joe Frank stated that he would like to acknowledge the presence
of Steve Ryder, a Doctoral Student at CSU. He stated that Mr. Ryder participated in the
research that led to the preparation of the reports and recommendation. Mr. Ryder also
attended the meetings held this summer on this issue.
Mr. Frank stated that the Board was to provide recommendations to City Council on what
regulations the City should adopt as part of the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS)
and subdivision regulations in regards to solar orientation of new single family lots and multi-
family buildings. These issues were first raised by City Council two years ago, when they
adopted their 1990 -1991 goals. In addition, developing measures for energy conscience site
design was considered an important project in the 1990 audit of the LDGS.
Mr. Frank stated that the staff began looking at these issues in 1990. In February 1991,staff
presented a draft report to City Council, which offered a "laundry" list of policy options. This
report had been presented to the public at an open house in January and had been reviewed by
the Planning and Zoning Board and the Natural Resources Advisory Board.
Mr. Frank stated that one finding of this report was that, while the overall energy program of
the City provided a good foundation for future solar energy use in the community and while
criteria of the LDGS touched upon the issue of Solar Orientation, these measures and programs
did not have much affect on what was actually being built. During the months of March and
May, Council debated what direction to give staff, and on May 7th of this year, Council
adopted Resolution 91-72 which directed staff to develop new requirements for solar
orientation.
Mr. Frank described the specifics of the Resolution.
Mr. Frank continued by stating that for the past 6 months, staff had researched this topic and
identified several options. This information was published in a series of reports which were
made public and reviewed in detail by the Planning and Zoning Board. This information was
also shared with a Technical Advisory Committee. The committee was composed of
representatives of the building industry, the real estate industry, representatives of the
Planning and Zoning Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board, the general public, and city
staff. The findings were also presented to the Natural Resources Advisory Board. On
September 4, the NRAB reviewed the document and recommended that the ordinances and
standards be adopted by the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council. Finally, this
information was presented to the general public at a public open house in July. The specific
recommendations of staff were as follows:
• 5
- A new Solar Orientation standard should be included in both the LDGS and the
subdivision regulations. Staff suggested that a standard be established which would
require 70% of new single family and two family residential lots be solar oriented.
Staff also believed that lots larger than 15,000 square feet should be exempt from this
requirement, as well as lots which were platted as minor subdivisions or located in the
foothills residential zone.
-In order to encourage developers to exceed the standard, staff suggested that a new
density bonus be added to the LDGS. A one percent density bonus was recommended
for every one percent increase in the number of solar oriented lots up to a maximum 10
percent bonus.
-Staff suggested that two methods be included in the subdivision regulations and the
LDGS for determining when a lot was solar oriented. The first method defined a solar
lot as having a front lot line oriented within 30 degrees of a true east/west line. The
second method defined a solar lot as being a lot whose long axis was oriented within 30
degrees of true north/south.
Mr. Frank stated that research indicated that the keys to success of solar ordinances was not
only having clear and enforceable standards, but having the flexibility to recognize those
properties that might find it impossible to achieve a solar orientation standard, for reasons such
as; severe slopes, existing roads and utilities, significant natural features (existing wetlands and
wildlife areas), or other unusual site characteristics (size and configuration). Staff believed
that the LDGS provided the flexibility that was needed to consider these factors in granting
variances to the solar orientation standards; however, in staffs analysis, the subdivision
regulations did not provide this flexibility. Therefore, staff recommended that the variance
criteria provided in the LDGS also be repeated in the subdivision regulations. Staff also
recommended, as part of the solar ordinances, that new lot statistics be provided on site plans
and plats showing the total number, location, and phasing schedule.
Mr. Frank stated that staff was recommending that the Board review the performance of the
solar orientation ordinance after one year of implementation. This audit would include, among
other issues, taking a long look at the problems which may have been encountered with
implementing these new standards.
Mr. Frank stated that one of the issues that was given much attention was the issue of solar
orientation of multi -family buildings and lots. Staff was not recommending adoption of a
orientation standard for multi -family development. Staff believed that requiring solar
orientation of multi -family buildings was complicated and perhaps even impractical. To
impose requirements may have serious negative effects including, but not limited to, significant
decreases in densities and may lead to possible unattractive site layouts. Staff believed the City
would be better off addressing energy conservation in multi -family projects through other
avenues such as building construction.
Chairperson Strom asked for public input.
Lori Parcell, a resident of Fort Collins, stated she would encourage that these codes be adopted.
She felt that this project was moving in the right direction. One of the reasons she currently
resided in Fort Collins was because the City had a high standard for quality in building and
for quality of life. She felt that the city had a lot of resources as far as solar goes. To increase
the quality of the existing structures and of life, it would be helpful if these codes were
implemented.
M
Chris Ray, Vice President of Northern Colorado Association of Home Builders, presented and
• read a letter from the Home Builders Association. (See attached letter.)
Linda Hopkins, 1809 Rangeview, stated that, as a former planning staff member, she observed
first hand the philosophical development and the application of the LDGS. She sincerely
believed that the original philosophy and precepts of the guidance system were valid. She felt
that the city was getting further and further away from the notion of guidance and toward
conflicting with the market and consumer preference in choice. Layers of regulations added
to the system, which were presumably perceived as minor additions, were becoming more and
more onerous. She offered three key points which should be considered in the deliberation.
- Having seen a number of the drafts that have been proposed, she agreed that the
current variance language in the LDGS was more reasonable than other alternatives,
particularly those that tried to anticipate and numerically categorize six or seven
possibilities or reasons that a variance might be granted.
-A second point was that the magnitude of change imposed by the 70% requirement was
beyond what was necessary to achieve council's goals. Significant improvement would
be made by bringing subdivisions that were at very low percentages of solar orientation,
for example 30%, 40%, 50%, and up, to a standard of 60%. Sixty percent may be the
most reasonable standard. She believed sixty percent to be more consistent with the
philosophy of guidance.
- Third, if in fact a numbers game was going to be played, she suggested that it was
more fair to include corner lots with south facing side yard expanses that abutted either
street frontage, drainage areas or some reasonable distance of public property that
would protect solar access. Those lots ought to be counted in the percentage calculated.
Ralph Waldo, 1406 Twin Oak Court, spoke on behalf of the Fort Collins Board of Realtors. He
stated that the Board supported the concept of solar orientation to enhance the energy usage
in residential homes. However, they would rather see this as a guideline in the LDGS and the
subdivision requirements, rather than something that was mandated. If the ordinance was
passed tonight, they asked that the percentage be changed from 70 percent to 60 percent for the
following reasons:
- Infill projects, street locations may already be dictated by how they match up with
streets in adjoining areas; sewer lines may already be in place, detention ponds may be
required, and the space available in these areas affect the viability of particular infill
projects. Sundisk Village, which had been approved for development, would not have
been possible with this 70 percent orientation requirement. He knew of one
builder/developer who was considering nine projects - seven of which were infill
developments. He believed that with this 70 percent restriction, these projects would not
be possible. He felt that this put a restriction on infill projects, which he believed
everyone would like to see accomplished and would prevent urban sprawl.
- The 60 percent figure would reduce the number of times people would need to go
through the variance process. This would mean lower costs to the developer, and lower
cost to the consumer. It would also mean less staff time reviewing these variances and
might provide for a more efficient city government.
0 7
-He believed that the seventy percent figure would force more east/west running streets
and would eliminate the opportunity for quality planning. The mountain views, lake
views, curvelinear streets and cul-des-sacs, green belts, and other lifestyle amenities
would be restricted.
-Since neither city staff, citizen planners, the real estate development community, nor
the Planning and Zoning Board knew precisely what percentages were achievable to
obtain maximum solar orientation, he asked that the Board approve the 60 percent
figure. If, in the planning process, it was found that a higher percentage can be
achieved without restricting individual choices, good land use planning, and added cost,
then the percentage should be amended upward for something that would work for
everybody. He believed that it would be less costly for everyone involved and much
easier to raise the percentage than to lower it if it proved to be restrictive.
-Finally, he asked the Board to move the time frame for evaluating the ordinance from
one year to two years. He did not feel that the relatively small number of subdivisions
coming forward at the present time would be statistically significant to evaluate
anything good or bad. He asked for a 24 month time frame so that better data could be
provided to evaluate the validity of the ordinance.
Eldon Ward, planning consultant with Cityscape Urban Design, stated that he had also been on
the City staff and had looked at these questions from a number of standpoints. He felt that
this had been given a lot of discussion and raised critical questions such as how much of a
hardship was it going to present, would it dilute the quality of planning, and what would it
do to the cost of development. He believed he would have a much higher level of comfort if
there was a trial period where the developers could work with the proposed regulations without
having the ominous variance request hanging out there. He had reviewed the statistics and had
done some sketches with changed streets and lots. When he prepared a site plan, there were
literally dozens of factors that influence the way lots were laid out, and at this point, he didn't
believe he knew whether 70 percent was too high or too low. There was not a high level of
activity right now and there was not a crises at hand that stated that if these regulations
weren't immediately implemented as absolute requirements that there was going to be some
problem. He stated that, from his point of view, he would like to have a trial period where the
developers could work with these requirements and see how they really worked.
Stan Everitt, Everitt Companies and a member of the Technical Advisory Committee, stated
he worked with city staff to discuss the proposed ordinances over the past several months. As
a 'developer in Fort Collins, his company had always tried to be on the leading edge of
subdivision design and planning. The future of Fort Collins obviously held many uncertainties,
just as the future of the world does. Energy and the environment were critical issues affecting
all of our lives and it was up to us to make sure that the decisions we make now would be the
right decisions because they'll affect our children and our grand -children. It was apparent that
there were some legitimate issues and some questions regarding solar orientation of lots in new
subdivisions. We have heard many good comments for and some comments against the
regulations. He felt it was very important to realize that this was more than just another
subdivision regulation. This ordinance was much different than the ordinance now regulating
subdivision development. Other ordinances of this type, for instance those regulating the size
of a sewer pipe or the thickness of paving, were based on quantified national standards relating
to health and safety. Solar orientation was a question for him and he didn't know if it was
related to health and safety. The orientation ordinance was different because it was a social
issue. The ordinance gave priority to solar energy primarily due to environmental concerns.
He was not aware of any other subdivision regulation that imposed such social priorities.
8
of dirt was selected and taken to the Planning Department, the regulations spelled out how the
lots can be laid out. He wondered why developers were not already orienting lots to the sun.
He questioned whether there were other criteria which were more pressing that prevented
developers from achieving 70%. He stated his company specialized in the entry level home, so
to them, every dollar counts, and to the buyers the dollars especially count. Part of the quality
of life across the nation and in Fort Collins was the ability to afford a home and he believed
that, through this current ordinance, the quality of life would be downgraded because costs
were going to increase.
Chris Zell, Head of the Larimer County Affordable Housing Task Force, concurred with Mr.
Guilliano on the statement regarding the quality of life in Fort Collins. He believed there were
a lot of people in the area who could not afford housing because of the rental rates and the
lack of units. He indicated a one to two percent vacancy rate in town. He believed that if we
want to be the Choice City, we need to look at these issues and See what was actually out there
and what people could actually afford. If this was a move to become an elite community like
Boulder, where, unless a person were making $30,000 to $40,000 a year, one could not afford
to live here, then he believed that this ordinance should be passed. He believed that we should
be trying to get some affordable housing. If regulations were added to this situation they
would affectively cut-off the people who might be able to own homes in this city as well as
aggravate the rental market.
Chairman Strom closed the public input portion at this time.
Member Walker commented he believed that a number of the speakers eluded to concerns about
variances and the uncertainty associated with it. He asked for information on the procedure.
Mr. Frank stated that a developer would follow the current variance procedure provided for
in the LDGS. He believed it was important that the staff and applicant identify the need for
a variance as early in the development review process as possible, for instance, at the
conceptual review stage or earlier. At this point, staff would identify whether a variance was
needed, what the reasons were, and if it was justified. He believed it may take some time for
the staff and Board to be comfortable with what reasons constitute approval of a variance.
Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman stated that the criteria for a variance was that the proposal
was equal to or better than what would be required under the LDGS or that there was some
unique physical characteristic about the property which created a hardship and that the
granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public.
Mr. Frank believed that the variance criteria in the LDGS was flexible enough for the Board
and staff to consider the many kinds of issues that had been brought up this evening. For
instance, the Planning and Zoning Board could consider the existence of natural drainage areas
or existing trees or wetland/wildlife areas. The Board could then use the equal to or better
than clause to consider the other criteria in the LDGS that the subdivision may also be trying
to achieve and if justified, grant a variance. He stated that in the case of Sundisk, a variance
would probably be justified on the basis of its unique configuration. Mr. Frank believed that
any other lot layout would probably be impossible.
Member O'Dell recalled that the redrawing of Quail Hollow was used by staff as an example
of a variance because meeting the standard was seen as taking away some other amenities from
the subdivision.
10
Mr. Frank agreed with Member O'Dell's statement. He stated that staff had developed a
• number or redesigns for Quail Hollow and had come to the same conclusion as Mr. Jensen.
Staff did not believe that the redesigns were as good as the original plan due to the natural
drainage swell and the existing trees. The redesign meant a loss of some of the site amenities.
It was staff's conclusion that the existing conditions would have been good reasons to grant a
variance.
Member Walker suggested that the Board consider a two year time line for review of the
ordinance.
Mr. Frank replied that he did not have a strong preference either for one or two years. He was
surprised that anyone would want to wait that long. However, there was some merit to what
they were saying that in one year the staff would probably not see more than a six or so new
single family subdivision plats. However, if staff were to see problems immediately, staff
would not wait for two years to suggest changes.
Chairman Strom asked about a trial period. He commented that this trial period question was
interesting to him and that he would like staff's reaction to it.
Mr. Frank replied that he was not sure what was meant by a trial period. Mr. Frank discussed
some options including having the ordinance go into affect for a period of time, six months for
example, and then terminate automatically unless renewed; or allow developers to voluntarily
meet the standards for the first six months and after that time period the regulations become
mandatory. Another option was to implement the standards as voluntary guidelines and hope
that developers comply.
Chairman Strom asked if there was any evidence as to why the current subdivision average was
. not better than it was. He asked why we haven't done better in terms of solar orientation.
Mr. Frank believed that solar orientation was probably not a high priority for developers
relative to other issues that they, consider in the laying out of a subdivision.
Member O'Dell commented that she believed it was Mr. Waldo who mentioned the two year
period and he coupled it with lowering the requirement to 60 percent. She did not believe he
would advocate having the standard at 70 percent for two years.
Mr. Frank added that the 70 percent was not cast in stone. It is a policy issue of whether it
should be 60, 70, or 80 percent. He stated that staff arrived at the figure after talking with the
development industry and other communities. He believed it was an achievable number and
would not impose some of the development costs that could be associated with a higher
percentage.
Chairman Strom commented that the staff reports mentioned costs and asked staff to review
this information.
Mr. Frank stated that the cost was a function of what standard is required and that the more
restrictive a regulation was, the higher the potential cost. In the communities that were
surveyed with regulations that were fairly similar to what was being proposed, and in most
cases probably a little bit more restrictive, the costs were minimal. Portland, Oregon, which
was involved in a comprehensive area wide study of solar orientation/solar access, concluded
that the average cost for their new solar standards were $20 per lot and local government costs
were $4 per lot. He stated that the city of Nampa, Idaho had the most applicable ordinance,
found an average additional design cost per lot was $20.08 with no additional costs for
construction or plat processing. They found that designing for solar orientation did not to
reduce the number of lots or increase the linear frontage of streets and associated utilities. The
cost to the city for the additional review was an average 39.4 minutes per development,
resulting in an added cost of $.81 per lot. The overall cost per lot was $20.89.
Member O'Dell stated that some of the studies provided information on energy savings of solar
orientation at about 6 - 15 percent in traditional single family homes. She asked if that could
be translated to a 6 - 15 percent dollar savings on heating bills.
Mr. Ryder believed that the 6 - 15 percent energy savings was in terms of savings in kilowatt
hours. These figures were mostly the modest side of the scale. He stated that what Member
O'Dell might be trying to figure out was if the increased cost of designing the subdivision
would be offset over a year or two years by the increased savings for heating the home. There
did not seem to be any real good information along those lines. The regulations were different
for every community. The other two communities regulations were more restrictive than the
one's that staff was proposing. Both involve additional ways of meeting solar orientation. In
the Portland area, a number of communities also considered access easements, other types of
lot restrictions, building height limitations, and things that would take a fair amount of time
to negotiate and were fairly controversial. These actions are not recommended for Fort Collins.
Member O'Dell asked Mr. Frank to give a synopsis of the research criteria. She asked for
information related to the reliability and validity of the research that was done in terms of
the cities that were reviewed.
Mr. Ryder stated that staff undertook a survey to see what information was available. The
Planning Department had collected a lot of information over the years. Staff also used the
Planning Advisory Service and several different existing studies. Staff wanted to see how
existing regulations had changed over the years. There were a number of cities that had taken
different approaches to the subject of solar orientation/access. Trying to generalize was
difficult, but what staff tried to come up with were different ways to approach solar
orientation and solar access. The most used method was the performance standards, often
expressed in terms of a percentage, say 70 or 80%. Mr. Ryder stated that most of these
ordinances contained access language and height restrictions that would apply to different lots
than the lot in question. We focused on orientation. Some of the examples used an 80 percent
requirement, but they had a number of different ways in satisfying the standard. The existing
subdivisions that were looked at in the Fort Collins area had an orientation of about 55 percent
of the lots. The staff tried to select a standard that would not have a great impact on
developers but yet would accomplish something.
Mr. Frank added that staff had also conducted telephone interviews with some of the cities to
find out what kind of problems they might have had and how it affected the growth of the
city.
Chairman Strom asked if there had been any correlation between solar orientation and the size
of the development.
Mr. Ryder stated that the survey had included a large variation in the size of subdivisions, with
a number of them over 100 lots each. Staff did split out Sunstone into a number of phases.
Staff had focused on larger developers mainly because it was the larger developments where
there would be the most success. It would be more difficult for smaller subdivisions to meet
the standards because of the issues raised earlier with regard to infill, existing service, etc..
Chairman Strom asked about the variance procedure and the timing issue
12
Mr. Frank stated that an important point is to not establish too high a standard that it results
in many variance requests. He stated that the Board currently reviews other variance requests
and that variance requests from the solar orientation standard would follow the same
procedure. He believed that after some experience in working with the ordinance, staff would
be able to predict what is a reasonable request.
Planning Director Tom Peterson suggested that if the city started to get a lot of variance
requests, this would indicate that something was not right with the ordinance and it would be
looked at immediately.
Member O'Dell stated that Linda Hopkins had brought up a point about lots that had their long
axis facing south and were next to a street or drainage way thus allowing the solar access.
These lots would not meet the solar lot definition. She stated that these lots do achieve what
the city was attempting to arrive at. She believed that there should be some way to include
those lots.
Mr. Frank stated that a variety of alternative definitions for solar oriented lots were discussed
with the steering committee. He believed there was some validity to consider corner lots as
"solar lots" because they had less shading than interior lots that were also facing east/west.
However, he believed that to consider those lots under the proposed definition was mixing
issues of solar orientation and access.
Member Walker believed that they had been directed by Council to consider this issue. He
believed what was driving the process was the citizens of Fort Collins who believed this was
something that ought to be looked into. He believed that the ordinance was sensitive to infill
situations where physical constraints would require variances. He added that builders were
having to now deal with a number of constraints that were more complicated, difficult and
expensive than solar orientation. He questioned those arguments. In reviewing the list of
subdivisions that had been reviewed in the process, he noted that there was quite a variety of
projects with different housing styles and costs that almost met or were greater than the 70
percent solar orientation standard. He felt that solar orientation was not a complicated task
or process and that it was not going to be difficult for builders to achieve. He did agree that
there needed to be a comprehensive energy policy and believed that this ordinance was one part
of it. He suggested that Council review energy conservation, particularly as it relates to multi-
family housing. He stated that one answer the technical committee couldn't come up with that
would make sense was a solar orientation standard for multi -family. He suggested that the
Board might consider some energy conservation measures that might be more appropriate for
multi -family housing. He stated that there was an existing mechanism for granting variances
and that it did not present a great deal of difficulty in achieving this. He stated that saving
energy was also a part of affordable housing and getting a mortgage on a house. He believed
that solar orientation was an issue that might make housing more affordable. He added that
he supported the 70 percent criteria.
Member Carroll had concerns with the issue and believed that the Board was dealing with a
social issue of saving energy. Member Carroll agreed that City Council had dictated that the
Board do something in regards to this issue and his concern was with the potential for
variances being requested and the 70 percent standard. Member Carroll suggested that every
time a subdivision was submitted, some analysis should take place in regard to meeting the
solar ordinance. Carroll stated concerns of how the solar regulations would blend with other
standards that developers have to meet. He did not want to see a lot of variances being
requested. He believed that many of the subdivisions that had not reached 70 percent indicated
0 13
that the Board will see some variances. He suggested going with the 60 percent standard and
look at the plats as they come in to see what exactly they were dealing with and if there was
any conflicts with other city standards.
Chairman Strom was concerned with the cost issue. He did not want to see the city become an
elite community but he stated that the cost was going to be pretty low if developers go into the
development process with a known standard. He did not believe that the regulations would
have much of an affect on affordable housing and the cost of housing in general. In terms of
establishing a standard, he believed the survey of existing subdivisions indicated a number of
developments have met or exceeded 60 percent essentially without even trying. He suggested
that the Board set a higher standard and see if developers can achieve it. He stated that it was
imperative that the city monitor the ordinance closely. He stated that if half of the
subdivisions came through with variance requests, then there probably was a problem that
needed to be reviewed. He stated that he was leaning towards 70 percent rather than 60
percent.
Member O'Dell added that for the last six months everyone had been arguing over what
standard to impose, be it 50 percent, 60 percent, or 70 percent. She felt that 70 percent was
achievable without increasing costs. She supported the process and what staff have brought
before the Board, noting that this would be audited after one year of implementation. She
stated that even though she supported the 70 percent, she believed that the Technical Advisory
Committee did not come to an agreement on 70 percent. She felt that what was most important
was that the Board was providing the opportunity for people to use the sun and to ignore that
opportunity was a shame. She felt it was a free source of heat/light.
Member Klataske commented that the consumer would let the developer know what they
wanted or what they didn't want and he felt that if this was something that the Fort Collins
consumer overwhelmingly wanted, there would be that demand and homes would have been
built this way. He added that his comments did not mean that there should or shouldn't be
some encouragement for solar orientation because it involved very little costs and the reward
was energy savings. The believed the cost of energy was a part of housing cost. He stated that
whether it was a year or two years, or whether it was 60 or 70 percent, those type of items
should not be considered apart from the equation of what goes into what was being submitted
as a plan and how well a plan worked. He believed the Board needed more feedback from the
community as to whether these homes would sell, what the additional cost is, and what would
be the benefit to the developers if solar orientation were required. He was not certain what
standard should be recommended to City Council. He added that there were a lot of things to
be considered and he did not wish to see one more layer of ordinance added if it was going to
make it more difficult to develop in Fort Collins.
Member O'Dell moved to recommend to City Council the changes to the LDGS and subdivision
regulations concerning solar orientation of single family lots as presented by staff and
specifically those that have to deal with standards for single and two family lots, the
definitions for solar orientation, recommended requirements for Information on PUD plans and
subdivision plats, recommended code changes relating to the granting of variances to the solar
orientation standards and to recommend the change to the residential density chart in the
LDGS. She added she would like to have staff review Including as part of the definition of
solar oriented lots, corner lots that have good access as a result of having a street or drainage
area on the south side so that the solar access would be assured. She added that the Board
should review the ordinance in one year to evaluate how well It was being met and how difficult
it might be for developers,
Member Walker seconded the motion.
14
Member Clements -Cooney commented that the transportation strategy appeared to be short
term. She believed that a more active role should be taken in targeting commuters. She also
believed that the statement "within available resources" should be removed from the policies.
She asked if they have considered reviewing a bicycle arterial system rather than tying it into
the trail system.
Mr. Ensdorff replied that this would be considered in the action plan. This issue was in the
community.
Member Walker commented that general and recreational bicycling transportation should be
addressed. Ile suggested that in the mission statement regarding provision of a comprehensive,
safe and convenient bicycling system for the citizens of Fort Collins should be strengthened
by stating that it functions as a transportation mode. He believed that there was not enough
emphasis on the fact that one of the issues in a bicycle system was maintenance of the system.
He stated that in regards to the transit plan, the language was tepid in terms that the city
would provide public transit as a public service to the citizens of Fort Collins. He suggested
that this be worded as an alternative to single occupancy vehicles. He also suggested a third
policy statement that would have an impact on single occupancy vehicles.
Member Walker commented that he would like to see a more action -oriented verb in Priority
A regarding the support methods that promote public transit. He believed that the walking
portion of the plan could be more specific.
Chairman Strom asked for clarification of how the priorities were being used.
Mr. Ensdorff stated that this was based on a concept that there was more work to be done. He
stated that was not viewed as doing, but more as accomplishing, the cooperation by tying these
transportation elements together.
Chairman Strom asked at what point in the process would they be establishing measurable
criteria for evaluating the progress of the objectives.
Mr. Ensdorff stated that there would be greater detail on how they would accomplish these
things in the action plan. He stated that the emphasis on developing a vehicle -miles -traveled
growth rate to a population growth rate was important and discussed at the ad -hoc meetings.
Another important issue was the single occupancy vehicle rate which will be addressed at the
action plan stage.
Chairman Strom asked why the coordination with the LDGS was not mentioned in the transit
and pedestrian sections. He asked if this should be mentioned in all sections.
Mr. Ensdorff stated that it was specifically emphasized in the auto -truck and bicycle plan and
agreed that it should be mentioned in both. He stated that the Ad -Hoc committee did not
discuss the transit plan. They rewrote it and put in a form so it would match the other plans.
This was what Council approved.
Member O'Dell commented that the biggest challenge would be an educational effort that
would change values and habits. She believed that targeting school -based riders was an
important place to begin.
16
Mr. Ensdorff stated that the committee ' emphasized this throughout the process so the
community can learn what the impact of their choices were and eventually make different
choices once they are aware what that impact would be. He added that CSU students were
included in the school -based riders as users in the community.
Member Clements -Cooney commented that in regards to Priority B, bicycle plan mission
statement policies and objectives, this should be a Priority A. She felt uncomfortable with
these objectives and how they were prioritized. She added that the beginning of the Mission
Statement was lacking definition.
Mr. Ensdorff stated that they tried to provide a glossary that attempted to define some terms
that were not normally used.
Member O'Dell asked about the financing of this and how it would be placed in the budget if
approved by City Council
Mr. Ensdorff stated that it was their intent to have the action plans, based on these policies and
objectives, at a timely point for next year's budget process so that Council can, as they have
indicated that they wished to do, take these kind of issues and have them compete within the
budget process. Council will decide which action plan priorities would be fundable in the 1993
budget or make adjustments to the 1992 budget. In the yearly cycle, this should be in the
budget process with an on -going effort on transportation issues. He stated that some things can
be done with little cost. He stated that the larger items such as capital projects will be difficult
in allocating the sources.
Member O'Dell moved to recommend approval of the Transportation Plan with the addition that
Council consider, in their deliberations, the comments, questions, and issues that have been
• addressed by the Board.
Member Walker seconded the motion.
Chairman Strom suggested that the Board present their comments, questions and issues to staff
that they would like Council to consider.
Member Clements -Cooney stated that she did not feel comfortable with some of the wording
on the plan but did not wish to stop the transportation plan from going on. She believed that
the Board considerations can be reviewed by City Council and addressed by making the
statements more definitive. She stated that she supported the plan and the time and energy that
was given in making the plan.
Member Carroll commented that he was more interested in the action plan. He believed that
transportation was a very complicated and important issue to Fort Collins. He concurred with
Member Clements -Cooney and Member Walker that there had been some emphasis taken away
that should have been added with public transportation. He stated that he supported the plan
but believed more emphasis needed to be added.
The motion carried 6-0.
The meeting adjourned at 12:08 a.m.
0 17