Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 04/27/2017Building Review Board Page 1 April 27, 2017 Alan Cram, Chair City Council Chambers Michael Doddridge, Vice Chair City Hall West Andrea Dunlap 300 Laporte Avenue Tim Johnson Bernie Marzonie Justin Montgomery Fort Collins, Colorado Rick Reider The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing Minutes April 27, 2017 A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, April 27, 2017, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board Members Present: Alan Cram, Chair Mike Doddridge, Vice Chair Andrea Dunlap Justin Montgomery Tim Johnson Bernie Marzonie Rick Reider Absent: None Staff Present: Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official Cindy Cosmas, Administrative Assistant Cram noted that a quorum was present for this hearing. BOARD ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION 1. UApproval of January 26, 2017, Draft Minutes Montgomery made a motion, seconded by Doddridge, to approve the draft minutes of the January 26, 2017, hearing. Vote: 7:0. Building Review Board Building Review Board Page 2 April 27, 2016 2. U2016 Capital Expansion Fee Update Tiana Smith, Revenue and Project Manager of Finance at the COFC, provided the Board with an updated presentation of the proposed increases to the 2016 capital expansion fees, transportation capital expansion fees, and electric capacity fees. She described the purpose of each fee and how each is calculated. She also discussed in detail the impacts of each fee and how they compare to similar communities. She stated that City Council requested that these fees be “bundled” in order to better communicate in a holistic way to the community at large. Fees are calculated based on “level of service”, rather than trying to build the fee structure to reach a budgeted goal. The City has retained the same methodology since 1996, when impact fees were first introduced. Ms. Smith described some of the community outreach that occurred for the proposed park developments, restating that a consistent level of service would be assessed for all residents with respect to park fees. Dean Klingner, Capital Projects Manager, provided more information related to the proposed transportation capital expansion fees (previously street oversizing fees). He discussed several proposed changes: • Renamed “transportation capital expansion fee”, rather than “street oversizing fee”; • Charging fees based on unit size (square feet) rather than unit type; • Commercial/industrial uses are deemed to be similar and will be combined; • “Trip generation” methodology, which will use traffic engineering studies to identify impacts to the transportation system in order to recognize distance as well as frequency; and • Fundamental fee increase of approximately 20%, based on improvements necessary for development. Klingner also discussed several options being proposed: • Option A – fully funding the program (proportional costs for all necessary transportation improvements in terms of growth) • Option B – change to vehicle miles travelled (would raise residential fees overall and lower commercial fees) Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director, described what electric capacity fees are used for (cost to build monthly generation and transmission of electricity) and stated that the existing model is outdated. He added that the new methodology will focus on meeting the peak demand when building a distribution system. The calculation will be simpler, noting that large commercial customers represent less than 1% of all customers but 40% of overall electricity demand. Therefore, residential fees are expected to decrease and commercial fees are expected to increase. Ms. Smith recapped the proposal to bundle all of the fees, highlighting the fee percent changes. She also showed a graph of various land-use types and communities with respect to neighboring communities (Fort Collins’ fees appear to be average). Based on new median home sales price in 2016 ($437,000), she illustrated how fees have changed over time. Her recommendation is to phase in these fees over 3 years, using a calculated average to account for annual revenue loss due to the phasing. She asked the Board for any feedback that she could include in her presentation at the May 16P th P City Council hearing and adoption. Building Review Board Page 3 April 27, 2016 Board Questions and Deliberation Montgomery asked for more information explaining the methodology of having parks based on level of service rather than plan-based budget. Ms. Smith responded that, while there is a master plan for the parks, the intent is not having the current residents pay for future needs. She added that every 10 years a new community park has been built (only 2 remaining to build). Additionally, these fees will become self-regulating as development decreases and there is less impact to growth. Regarding the electric fees and demand charges, Montgomery also asked if there would be any impact on demand to adopt the most energy-efficient codes; Mr. Smith confirmed that there would be an impact in that total consumption will be lower (approx. a 12% drop per person). She added that the demand and type of energy will also change. Johnson asked what role CSU has regarding these fees, since they are a major consumer. Klingner responded that CSU does not pay the fee, but alternatives are utilized in order to ensure CSU meets the intent of the fee. Doddridge asked whether multi-family calculations are included in the park fees calculation; Noelle Currell, Sr. Fin Analyst, responded that it is based on equivalent dwelling units. Regarding Option A for transportation capital expansion fees, Cram asked why commercial and office fees will decrease; Klingner responded that this is a consequence of using vehicle miles per trip as a basis, even though the intent is to use industry best practices. He reminded the group that this option is not trying to incentivize a certain type of development. Cram speculated that driving up these fees could hurt potential low-income housing developments, comparing the proposed fees to levels being charged by Boulder. He added that such large fee impacts to residential may be too major, stating that these fees are really taxes. Doddridge asked if any potential impact analysis has been done on new residential construction. Ms. Smith responded that, because this is based on future development, no such analysis has been done. She reiterated that these calculations are based on usage of current assets, not an attempt to increase revenue. Regarding the total fee increases as compared to other communities, Gebo asked if there was a particular need for Fort Collins to change their current fee structure. Ms. Smith responded that this chart was just for comparison purposed, and the reason for the fee increases is because asset values have also increased. She added that Fort Collins tries to be competitive. Dunlap asked if other communities have more open space to develop compared to Fort Collins; Smith confirmed that this is the case and that supply and demand is calculated into housing prices. Doddridge thanked them for doing a second presentation, and he highlighted pros and cons of the fees proposed. Based on various Board comments, Cram concluded that the Board does not care to make a position statement at this time. Ms. Smith added that Phase 2 will include development review fees in the fall of 2017. She stated that any individual or group feedback would be appreciated. Cram suggested that having materials in advance of any future presentations would be helpful. 3. UI-Code UpdatesU Gebo discussed the 2015 I-Code updates, saying the amendment package is now at the City Attorney’s office for review. The 1P st P reading by City Council is on June 6P th P, then the 2P nd P reading two weeks later, then adoption. He doesn’t anticipate any issues with adoption. Gebo reviewed some of the more controversial issues (mainly the vinyl siding burn situations). There was some discussion of this particular topic, including safety issues and legal involvement.