Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 05/01/2003Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Mika] Torgerson Vice Chair: Jerry Gavaldon Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (W) 416-7435 Phone: (H) 484-2034 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Roll Call: Gavaldon, Carpenter, Colton, and Torgerson. Members Meyer and Craig were absent. Staff Present: Shepard, Eckman, Daggett, Zackley, McGaha Miller and Defines. Chief Planner Shepard reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: 1. Minutes of the February 6 and February 20, 2003 (Continued) Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. Recommendation to City Council for Revisions to the City Code and Land Use Code. Discussion Agenda: 3. #33-94G Lot 8, Harmony Safeway Marketplace — Project Development Plan. Item 2 was placed on Discussion and Item 3 was placed on the Consent Agenda. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent Items 1 (February 6th only), and Item 3, Harmony Safeway Marketplace — Project Development Plan, #33-94G. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-2. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 1, 2003 Page 2 Project: Recommendation to City Council for proposed revisions to the City Code and Land Use Code. The Code language changes are for prohibiting covenant restrictions on certain resource conserving activities, promoting resource conservation measures; authorizing inspections and requiring that soil amendment is incorporated into soil of all landscaped lots; authorizing interruption of water service due to emergencies; clarifying prohibitions against water wasting; and authorizing water rationing and emergency restrictions. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Gale McGaha Miller gave the staff presentation. She stated that this agenda item was to formalize the city's means of enforcing Code language that is already in place that applies to "post" Land Use Code developments that requires in the Land Use Code that the soil be amended in lots that are going to be landscaped. Ms. Miller stated that since 1998 this has been handled administratively, they have been directed by the City Manager's Office to begin doing inspections. Those inspections would apply to commercial and residential developments that are currently subject to the Land Use Code. The Land Use Code as currently written does not apply to all the developments that were in place previous to the Land Use Code. What they were suggesting was to modify the language and move it from the Land Use Code to the City Code so it would have a broader application. So it would not only apply to "post" Land Use Code, but also "pre" Land Use Code developments. It would also broaden it to those developments that might not require a building permit, like greenbelts, etc. The idea is that amending the soil prior to landscaping can cause big savings in water and is a good water conservation measure. It is a practice that is already in place by a lot of landscapers. They are gearing up in Water Utilities to make inspections. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 1, 2003 Page 3 Public Input Jim Martell, representing Progressive Living Structure, who is a builder here in Fort Collins. Their request would simply be that the Board table the item and send it back to staff and allow staff to discuss the item in greater detail with some of the builders. He thought there was a builder advisory committee that has not had an opportunity to have any input on this particular item. He did not think there was opposition to the 'concept', but the practical applications may need to be addressed a little more carefully. For example, as the Land Use Code is currently structured — first of all the regulations that are being considered tonight have not in the past been enforced in residential circumstances, only in commercial. The proposal is to begin enforcing the residential circumstances. The Code as presently written allows whoever obtained the building permit, before obtaining the certificate of occupancy, to file an affidavit saying that they have done what is being requested in these regulations, or that there is a legally binding agreement that it will be done. That legally binding agreement possibility has been eliminated under this proposed amendment. The practical effect of that is that the homeowner cannot do this himself or herself. Therefore, the builder who obtains the building permit must also do the soils amendment and landscaping before the house is occupied. Some homeowners might want to do their landscaping themselves. That also may be a very substantial cost saving benefit to the homeowner to do their own landscaping. Some of the new regulations given the new Land Use Code and the size of lots, maybe difficult, as a practical matter to do it on the lots. Tilling the soil down 10 inches may require equipment that maybe very difficult to get onto the lots once the home has been constructed. He thinks there are way to address some of those issues, given the opportunity for staff to meet with the builders and discuss some of the practical issues. He understands that the city is concerned about enforcement and the only ability that may be is the certificate of occupancy stage. It maybe that a different process could be implemented to have a permit issued for landscaping before the landscaping is installed, and inspect the landscaping just like a building inspection. The staff report does indicate that they do intend to hire staff to do these inspections. Rather than adding a fee to the building permit, it may be possible to consider simply adopting a different type of landscape permit and maybe that would provide the homeowner to do the landscaping themselves. There are some issues that are practical in nature and need to be resolved very easily. He was concerned about adopting changes to the code and once they are adopted, it is very difficult to make any future changes if it turns out it does not work. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 1, 2003 Page 4 Mr. Martell asked that the item be tabled and allow an opportunity for the building community to have a little greater input. Bob Peterson, representing himself and past President of Northern Colorado Homebuilders Association spoke to the Board. It was his understanding and interpretation of the current Code that we have that it is very easy to enforce in a multi -family and commercial setting because of the requirement for landscaping to be in place before the certificate of occupancy is issued. He personally finds it very impractical to place that burden on builders in order to ensure that it is done for some of the same practical reasons that Mr. Martell brought up. Mr. Peterson brought up the scenario of building a house in the winter and needing to get a certificate of occupancy to get people moved into their home; and the shear impossibility of being able to work into any kind of a soil. Also as a builder in Fort Collins, he has worked with the Building Department for several years in trying to eliminate the possibility of moving people into homes with temporary certificate of occupancies. He sees the only way that this could work and tie it to a construction certificate of occupancy would be to issue a temporary certificate until weather would permit the work to be done. He would assume that the city would require a one and a half time an escrow amount, which would tie up capital resource funds for the builders, particularly for builders that build multiple homes and could have large numbers of homes in that category. Mr. Peterson echoed Mr. Martell in saying that he was not in favor of more permits or fees of any kind. This is basically a landscaper responsibility not a builder responsibility. Ms. Miller clarified that this requirement is for amending the soil, not for landscaping. It does indeed shift the burden for amending the soil from a landscaper or homeowner to the builder, but the certificate of occupancy can be issued once the soil has been amended and inspected. The landscaping is not placed on the builder. Linda Hopkins, serves on the Board of Realtors Governmental Affairs Committee and the Chamber Local Legislative Affairs Committee. She does not represent either of those groups, the net effect is that it makes her a curious citizen. When she saw the information come through, she is curious. She had just came from another meeting in Denver where she was meeting with the Mayor of Broomfield, and Adams County Commissioner and the Mayor of Longmont. While they were taking a pause in their deliberations, she asked them how they handled their soil amendment requirements and their inspections of soil amendment requirements. She got a very blank look. Which led her to believe that they don't have that Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 1, 2003 Page 5 requirement, or secondly don't have inspectors hired to go out with a ruler. It led her to conclude that Fort Collins, thankfully, is ahead of the curve in this instance. Ms. Hopkins felt that the goals of water conservation to soil absorption that you can achieve with amended soil are really goals that we would like to, as a community, to support. She has a number of areas of concern and would like to generally out like those: The City Plan Advisory Committee has devoted the last months to broad goal statements, larger issues, there are some on their committee who are itching to get at some of the more finer Code issues. She would see something like this falling into that category. Among the opportunities to work on water conservation, this is one, and there are others that the committee is looking forward to working on. In addition to tabling this item and looking for more builder input, she thought it was an opportunity for the City Plan Committee and those who want to work on Code issues have an opportunity to look at the larger picture, which this may fit into. She understands that we are not here to debate the Code itself, it has existed since 1998. In each instance we like to look at cost benefit analysis. She thinks that to the extent that the cost to the builder, which is about $1,000 to $1,500 per lot to accomplish this, and as the lots get smaller the cost goes up. She is under the impression that if we have adopted this Code as it is, that we have already demonstrated the cost benefit analysis is beneficial at the Code as it exists. As City Plan is now in place and those lots that are coming through, prior to City Plan, she thought that it would behoove us to look at the change in that cost benefit analysis. Further she thought it was equally important to look at the cost benefit analysis of this specific Code change that the Board is considering this evening. The cost is $60,000 or $70,000. The benefit may in fact be there if it achieves greater compliance, but we have had no discussion that there is not adequate compliance. She thinks that most builders and homeowners look towards having their soil amended. Both just to have the quality of the soil, and to protect their landscaping. Landscapers will typically do that in order to allay the risk of warranty work a year later. She was concerned that the cost benefit of the "inspector" fees does not achieve any greater benefit in any further compliance. Speaking to the practical aspects of it, she thinks it weighs on the costs, ten inches is relatively arbitrary. She stated that you will find that bob cat tillers, bot cat loaders, you can have nearly a five foot in width piece of equipment, that comes with three different blades. The largest blade depth you can buy is six inches. She thinks that while the Code was originally was well intended, the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 1, 2003 Page 6 practical applications now may not make sense. Similarly, when going to get a certificate of occupancy, and weather considerations or the consideration of a temporary certificate of occupancy, this is just not for the landscape area, it is for the entire lot. Phone and cable have to be there for you to even get a temporary certificate of occupancy. As density in City Plan rises, it will be more expensive for phone and cable, the depth, equipment, all these issues warrant taking this specific issue and possibly others that may help up achieve water conservation back to the builders and citizen committee for City Plan. Terry Hein, Vice President of Construction for Progressive Living Structures, 4190 North Garfield stated that he did not know if he could say anything more than what has already been said. He stated that they were not opposed to the idea of some kind of soil amendment, but he thought it needed to be looked at a little closer at how it needs to be done. All the reasons that Linda Hopkins spoke about about the equipment that can be used. The proximity that narrowness of lots, which in some cases is 5 feet away from the home. On a lot of those sites you have a three-foot projection window well. That leaves two feet for this operation to take place. They give everyone of their home buyers a document that is published by the State of Colorado that deals with the soil conditions, In it there is a recommendation of a no plant zone of that five feet or that you are very limited as what you do. They really stress that to people, to get that water so it is not going to affect their foundation. They think that all those things need to be looked at and reevaluated before something like this is broadly implemented. Steve Wilson, representing Melody Homes stated that his name was in the book that was published by the Colorado Geological Society. One of the points Mr. Hein made was that because of swelling and soil conditions, that an area 5 feet around the home — you do not want to add organic materials and you do not want to encourage, and in fact you want to eliminate plantings in that zone. That is not just a recommendation by the state for virtually all homes, but it usually the recommendation of the engineers of most of the homes they construct if there are any swelling soils at all. He stated that as the other speakers have said tonight, they do not have a problem with the concept, in fact in reviewing the existing Code, they believe it is too general and needs to be amended. There needs to be proper processes set up to really accomplish what the city is trying to do. In terms of whether we achieve this in this particular Code, he has some difficulties because he was not able to get a copy of the draft from the city prior to this meeting, although he has tried for the last two or three days. He has reviewed this in the couple minutes before this meeting and he thinks there is a host of issues. There are a number of little problems that have been brought up and he thinks that they are real problems. He also thinks that there are simple solutions to them if we just take the time to do it. The Board volunteers their time Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 1, 2003 Page 7 week after week and month after month in working in public hearings. He knew that as a builder, if they came in and they wanted to amend a plat or change the zoning, there would be a significant amount of public input and notice before they could even get before this Board. Yet, we are looking at an Ordinance that will have a significant impact on how builders do things and there has been no opportunity for those who would be impacted to have any significant input on this and that is what is being asked for tonight. John Wilhelm, Wilhelm Homes, Englewood Colorado stated they were also builders in the Fort Collins area. Like all his predecessors he fully supports what has been presented to the Board tonight. They are not opposed to the qualities of amending the soil under landscape issues. There are a lot of good qualities to that. There are many builders in Fort Collins that do and have gotten certificates of occupancy without landscaping because they do not provide landscaping as an option. That is strictly a homeowner issue. That would be in a landscape agreement and contact with their own landscape company or landscapers. One of the issues in the document that he just received tonight to review is that there are no specific areas of amendment. If we are going to amend the soil prior to the certificate of occupancy and the buyer does not landscape his lot for another year, what you will have is a very fertile area for weed growth that will be an eyesore to the community. He also suspects that with rain and snow melts that a lot of the nutrients from the amendment might be stripped from the intended purpose will then harden and will have to be refertilized and rototilled. He asked that the Board give the opportunity to the building community to discuss this issue and meet at a later date. Public Input Closed Member Gavaldon asked if staff had met with the Homebuilders Association or any members of the building community. Ms. Miller responded that when they were directed by the City Manager's Office to begin doing inspections on the City Code developments, staff sent out a letter to all the builders that they had in their database. That letter went out on March 25, 2003. It went out to builders whether they were doing "pre" or "post" Land Use Code Developments. It outlined under the existing Land Use Code requirements, how they would be implementing the inspections. She reminded the Board for "post" Land Use Code developments, this language has always applied to both residential and commercial. It is just that staff did not have the resources to inspect for both. Bob Zackley, who will be heading up the inspection program, has met with about 17 different builders on numerous occasions since then. They did not hold formal meetings at that time because Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 1, 2003 Page 8 they were simply implementing existing Code language. They were then directed to broaden that language so it would apply to all developments with landscaping, not just the "post' Land Use Code ones. At that point, Carrie Daggett, City Attorney, helped craft language to move the requirement from the Land Use Code to the City Code. The public input process had taken place years ago and this has been in place for along time. To answer the question, no they did not have formal meetings, but did have many informal meetings with quite a few builders. Member Gavaldon asked for a copy of the letter that was sent out. Member Gavaldon asked how many phone calls were received after the letter went out on March 25th, and what feedback has been received. Mr. Zackley replied that they received the same kind of comments on the phone calls and the same questions that the Board has seen tonight. He has taken 20 to 25 calls in the last 3 to 4 weeks. About 90% of those calls had to do with implementation and the rest were objections to doing this for one reason or the other. Member Gavaldon asked for a list of the builders he had met with personally. Mr. Zackley responded with listing some of the builders he has met with in addition to a number of landscaping companies also. Member Gavaldon asked with all the phone calls was it ever thought about that maybe there should be a meeting held? Maybe staff should have a meeting to answer questions, take notes, and get comments and concerns. Maybe look at some different things to aleve some of the fears. He felt that a formal meeting would have been appropriate even though it has been on the books for four years. But staff has not done anything with this in four years, so you cannot just go and say "lets start enforcing this'. Ms. Miller clarified that it was not just that nothing was done with regards to these regulations, builders for "post' Land Use Code commercial developments were required to turn in an affidavit, so builders doing those developments were already aware of the requirements since 1998. With regards to the current regulations that are on the books now, the Homebuilders Association has a standing meeting with the City Manager and a meeting has been set up for tomorrow. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 1, 2003 Page 9 Member Gavaldon responded that they were supposed to give a recommendation to City Council with these meetings being out of sequence. Ms. Miller stated that was unfortunate because they were scheduled to go to City Council on May 20tn Chairperson Torgerson asked about the question that was brought up regarding the commercial projects being able to escrow one and a half times the amount of the landscaping required, so the original building contractor does not necessarily have to do the landscaping. Is a similar program been considered for residences, so residents can put their own landscaping in? Ms. Miller replied that it does not require the builder to put in the landscaping, it only requires the builder to amend the soil and then someone else can do the landscaping. If weather conditions or some other condition would prohibit the soil amendment from occurring, yes it would be possible to do some sort of escrow system for that as well. Mr. Zackley added that staff was directed to enforce the old ordinance originally and that is how they got it. They did not just make up an idea that they would just start doing this. Staff was directed to do this. When looking at the existing ordinance, they could enforce it as it is. They could start inspections and go out and enforce it. The ordinance contained a lot of problems and flaws and a lot of areas staff felt could be made better. This new ordinance is an attempt on staffs part, which staff feels is a relatively good attempt, to clean up a lot of the mistakes and errors in the first ordinance. The first of which is that the original ordinance excludes anything that was approved "non" Land Use Code. Staff has done some surveys and has done some checking and that would basically exclude 65% of the new land to be built on in town. They did not feel it was right to enforce on 35% of the people and let the other 65% go. That would defeat the purpose of what they were trying to accomplish in the ordinance initially. One of the other things staff did was add in the new ordinance was add a provision so staff has the ability to work with builders if they get into situations with snow, rain, for whatever reason the work cannot be done. There is a blanket language in the ordinance for the city to "back off' and give the certificates out and come to an agreement with the builders and so they can escrow it until it can get done. Chairperson Torgerson thought that that sounded like that was a fall back of whether or not the weather is bad. But it is a fairly common place for homeowners to do their own amendment and landscaping. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 1, 2003 Page 10 Mr. Zackley reported that there was also a provision that the requirement could be waived if there is a situation of steep lots and really narrow side lots. Any number of situations that we would see that is legitimate hardship where the amendment cannot be legitimately put in. The other thing that they have done is that there are a lot of developments in town that have as much as 50% open space. The original ordinance did not apply to that. The ordinance and the Land Use Code have been amended so in the future the soil amendment project can be done on all properties, not just a building permit. Chairperson Torgerson asked about the question that came up regarding the 12" inch depths. He is not a landscaper, but he has never seen that depth tilled. Mr. Zackley replied that the original ordinance states you should loosen the soil and put compost or other soil amendments. It does not say anything about how deep. They are trying to set a standard in the new ordinance. In terms of the depth, it is an arbitrary thing. Chairperson Torgerson asked if 12" was an industry standard for amending soil. Mr. Zackley replied that there really is not standard. The 6" standard is good for amending putting a soil amendment into the top layer. Chairperson Torgerson asked why we were amending to 12" then. Mr. Zackley replied that 12" was an arbitrary number that he chose. They have now amended it to 10". Chairperson Torgerson asked if equipment was readily available to till to that depth. Ms. Miller offered some photos of some equipment that would be used to do this kind of thing and also some photos of soil amendment occurring in narrow lots and steep slopes. Ms. Miller and Mr. Zackley reviewed the slides for the Board. The slides showing soil amendments being done on narrow lots and up to foundations. Also showing steep slopes and the equipment being used to do the soil amendments. Mr. Zackley reported that the original ordinance only listed 3 items that the soil could be amended with, they have put language in the new ordinance that would allow any number of different soil amendments to be used as long as they have some organic material. Staff has discretion in approving that. Also a lot of people will strip the topsoil in a subdivision and stockpile it and then put it back. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 1, 2003 Page 11 There was no provision in the initial ordinance to allow people to do that. They had to amend the soil period. In the new ordinance it will be allowed for people to go out and strip the topsoil and put it back on and that would comply with the ordinance. Chairperson Torgerson asked if this was going to apply to developments other than those that are under the Land Use Code, and it has restrictions on things that can be in covenants, what about developments that are currently approved, but not built and the covenants are already done. How do we change covenants of existing developments? Deputy City Attorney Eckman responded that there is a principle of the police power that comes into play as opposed to the contract clause. That the welfare of the people is a supreme law and in his opinion, if the city an annunciate a legitimate public health, safety or welfare purpose in this, and this actually does advance that purpose and hits the target it was intended to hit, then the police power should prevail over the contracts clause. You can't make a contract about something by making the contract somehow manage to obviate the law. Chairperson Torgerson stated that in this case the contract would have occurred before the law. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that it would still apply Ms. Miller reported that this item went to the Water Board last week and in the first paragraph, they got very interested in the parenthetical near the end that talks about clotheslines, and that a covenant could not forbid people using clotheslines if they were located in the backyard and completely screened from view from public streets. The Water Board struck that phrase "completely screened from view from public streets" from their recommendation that City Council approve this. Mr. Zackley commented that some of the arguments he has heard are very legitimate, but the evidence around town simply does not support as much of the argument as you might expect seeing the pictures. Member Carpenter stated that she did not hear anyone hear tonight say that this could not or should not be done. Her question is that we have had this on the books since 1998 and now all of a sudden, even before we can meet with the Homebuilders Association, what is the hurry. Staff is only doing what they have been told to do and her comments are not necessarily to them. She thinks that we need to table this and take some time so we don't have arbitrary language in Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 1, 2003 Page 12 this. We need to know what needs to be done in order to save water. We also need to work with the people who are actually going to be doing this, which are the homebuilders to find out what is going to work and what would not work. This does not make sense to her, she does not see a great big hurry and she has not seen anything tonight that shows that we had an enforcement problem with to begin with. She would like to see that and she thinks that it is a good time with the City Plan Advisory Committee working on it. She thinks we need to step back a couple of steps and figure out the best way to make this happen so it works for the people who have to do it, for the homeowners who are buying homes and for the city in general. Member Colton asked what kind of compliance has been done in the past. Ms. Miller replied that it has been the honor system. People have turned in affidavits and they have been reviewed and filed. Staff does not know if people have been complying or not. As far as what is the hurry. When they started this, we were in a record -breaking drought; we are on this path before we got a record -breaking blizzard, and a lot of rain. We were looking at water restrictions of one day a week and worrying that we would run out of water by the end of the summer at that. We said to ourselves that we have this on the books that could create water savings for decades to come and times a wasting and developments are going in and if they don't go in with soil amendment now it is not going to happen once it is landscaped. It would be irresponsible of us in attempting to conserve water not to take this opportunity and put these things into place now. That is what the hurry was. Member Colton asked one of the builders who said that we could not do this up to the foundation walls because of expansive soils. He would like to understand a little more about that. Almost everyone has something next to their foundation walls whether it is a shrub bed or grass. Are they saying that there would be nothing there? Steve Wilson, Melody Homes replied that the engineers recommend no planting or irrigation within 5 feet of the foundation. What they do with their, and every builder is different, and they certainly do not put soil amendments up to their foundation walls, and nor would they, if they were installing irrigation, put it up to the foundation walls. They follow the recommendation of their engineer. What they do is they put a soil fabric within five feet and edging and then wait about a year to make sure that the backfill has stabilized so if there is any differential Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 1, 2003 Page 13 settling, they don't have to tear out the rock or bark that they have put in as a covering for that foundation area. Member Carpenter also had concerns about amending the soil if you are going to put it rock or native plants. Some native plants will not even grow if you amend the soil. She thought that the kind of xeriscaping that we want to see happen — she thinks that we should be looking at some other things. There are too many unanswered questions. Member Gavaldon's observations are that we did have an ordinance, but it was not used, it was on the honor system. There is no data about how it is working and it was admitted that the ordinance needed work, so new data was brought into the ordinance and made some changes. In his view this should warrant a builder community meeting because so much of the language has been changed. They were in a hurry and if you hurry, things fall through the crack and are not as clean and smooth. He was looking as the memo that was sent to the builders and it states 12". If he was the builder and saw this and it read that John Fishbach says 12", he better do 12". And now Bob says 10, and others say 6 or 8. He is looking for an average. He is really concerned about our hurried work and a lack of consistency here. If they want 12, it has to be 12. If there is a range of 6 to 12, give us that range, and let the work be done the right way. Member Gavaldon was also concerned with the way the ordinance is being pushed and all the language being changes that is totally different from the original ordinance. He is going to support the idea of tabling this for a month so good work and communication can be done. Good data can be gathered and a good statistical number for the depth be established. He thinks that we need to communicate with our partners and find out what is important and what is the best thing to do. We are spending $70,000 a year inspecting 1650 lots. It we don't have out ducks in a row, our inspectors are not going to do their jobs. He would hate to be an inspector right now because he would not know whether it is 6, 8 or 12. The memo was based on the existing language, which does not specify depth, so staff was using Bob's best professional judgement when they were first directed to do this. Then as they began to hear input from the community, that is when the depth was dropped down and so when they were ready to put some detail into proposed language changes, that is when it was incorporated. Yes, it is changing because as they hear they are learning and trying to make improvements. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 1, 2003 Page 14 Member Gavaldon said that was the flaw in the hurry to get this done, and is really showing that our ducks are not in a row. Was there a memo following up that said we are going to 10" instead of 12". Ms. Miller replied not yet because what is being proposed now has not been adopted. Member Gavaldon has concerns with the communications processes. They have to be stronger, realistic and effective and partnershipped together. The process is not smooth and easy running like he has seen other processes in the city. This is very important to him and he would like to see staff put their heads together with out builder partners and find what the best plan for the community is. They are citizens to. Member Gavaldon moved to table this item to their June 5th meeting and to recommend that City Council also table the item to a future date for the Planning and Zoning Board to make a recommendation for revisions to the Land Use Code as noted in their staff reports on pages 1 and 2. Specifically so a formal meeting and communication with the builders and landscapers of the city can be held and to hear their input and comeback with a formal recommendation. Also with appropriate statistics matching and dictating the depths of the topsoil. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Carpenter asked staff if one month was enough to have the kinds of meetings they need to have and look at what we really need to do and look at the data that we need. She would like to see some data on the need for enforcement, why we really believe that we need to enforce it. Ms. Miller replied that one month would be sufficient to do that. She also mentioned that this only applies to the areas that are to be planted, so the discussion about putting gravel next to the foundation, the way it is written right now, you would not be required to amend to soil next to the foundation. Member Carpenter stated that those are the things that we want to make sure that everyone understands. Member Colton commented that he was glad that this is being worked on, but would like to hear more about the concerns about enforcement. He thinks that the drought is still a big concern. Waiting a month might not kill us, but there will be a lot of yards put in in a month to. He does not want to delay this and he does Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 1, 2003 Page 15 think that there is still a sense of urgency on this. He agrees that a depth should be set so if we go out and find out that they are not meeting that depth we have something to stand on. He thought that having the meeting so everyone understands this would be great, although it has been on the books for four years in this form. The other thing that was not much talked about was the promotion of conservation and he wondered as with the homebuilders, has there been any outreach to existing Homeowners Associations letting them know that this is coming down the pike and do they have any concerns. He thought that they also should have input on this. Ms. Miller responded that she was not aware of any notification to the Homeowners Associations or Property Management firms. Member Colton felt that would also be a good outreach so they are not caught by surprise. Chairperson Torgerson felt that this was an important issue, he just really believes that is needs to be worked through with the building industry more thoroughly than it has so far. He thought that more outreach needed to be made. He added that outreach to the developers, and property management firms should be included. Member Carpenter felt that with the Homeowner's Associations and covenants, she did not see how they could do all this work in a month. Planner Shepard responded that the Neighborhood Resources Office has the capability of reaching all the Homeowner's Associations in the city. They have a database and contacts and that would be the mechanism that would be used. Member Carpenter felt that it absolutely had to be done. At the next meeting she does not want 100 homeowners standing out here talking about the problems. Ms. Miller felt that it was not an issue for the older covenants so much, because what this is saying is that you cannot prohibit xeriscape, you cannot mandate turf grass. In the older HOA's, the landscaping is already done. So if someone wanted to rip out their turf grass and put in xeriscape then it would be an issue. It is not like we are causing them to change something that they have already done. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 1, 2003 Page 16 Member Gavaldon amended his motion to include outreach to Homeowner's Associations and have that as part of the Boards package with their feedback and concerns as well as the homebuilders. Member Carpenter concurred with the change. Member Colton commented that in terms of whether the homebuilders, the landscape companies, or the homeowner puts in the amendment, his basic feeling is that the homeowner could not do this as well as a professional and would like to see that happen to make sure it is done right. Probably the sooner the better. Chairperson Torgerson added that in most cases the $1,500 to $2,000 could be added into your mortgage loan. The motion was approved 4-0. Other Business: Planner Shepard directed the Board to the memo that was dated April 29t" from Steve Roy, City Attorney. Attached are two ordinances which, if approved by the City Council, would revise the functions of the Air Quality Advisory Board and the Natural Resources Advisory Board so as to specifically authorize those boards to advise the City Council regarding proposed annexations and other legislative matters, and make recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Board regarding any planning items submitted to that board, to the extent that such proposed annexations, other legislative matters, or planning items entail air quality issues or natural resource or environmental protection issues. Chairperson Torgerson suggested that since this was just given to them before the meeting and they were short of Board Members, that they continue this to the next worksession to discuss. Member Gavaldon moved to table this item to their next worksession. Member Colton seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Approved by the Board May 15, 2003.