HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/19/2000Y
0
Chairperson Colton called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.
Roll Call: Colton, Bernth, Craig, Gavaldon, Carpenter, Meyer and Torgerson.
Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Olt, Virata, Jackson, Hayes and Deines.
Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent
and Discussion Agendas:
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes of the May 18 (Continued), and August 17, 2000
Planning and Zoning Board Hearings.
2. Modification of Conditions of Final Approval
3. #13-82CI Oakridge Block One PUD, Second Filing, Lots 2 & 3 — Final
4. #32-95E Registry Ridge PUD, Third Filing — Final
5. Recommendation to City Council for Minor Amendments to the
Master Street Plan.
6. Recommendation to City Council for the Adoption of the Canal
Importation Basin Master Drainageway Plan
7. Recommendation to City Council for an Amendment to the
Mountain Vista Subarea Plan.
Discussion Agenda:
8. #56-98H Parkside East at Rigden Farm — Modification of Standard
(Continued)
9. #12-97C Parkside West at Rigden Farm — Modification of Standard
(Continued)
Chairperson Colton pulled item 6 for presentation and discussion.
Member Gavaldon moved for approval of consent items 1 (excluding May 18), 2,
3, 4, 5 and 7. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was
approved 7-0.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 19, 2000
Page 2
Project: Recommendation to City Council for the
Adoption of the Canal Importation Basin
Master Drainageway Plan.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Susan Duba Hayes, Senior Stormwater Engineer gave the staff presentation. She
stated that she was in charge of the master drainageway planning for the Utilities
Department. Ms. Hayes gave a presentation stating that the basin was in the west
central portion of Fort Collins, directly west of CSU, bounded to the north by Mulberry,
to the south Drake Road, east Shields Street and to the west the Foothills.
Ms. Hayes gave background information stating that there was a Master Plan done in
1980 for this basin. Quite a bit has been built including the Canal Importation in
Fairbrooke facilities. She stated that since the flood damage in July of 1997, the city
has revised its fee structure, so we can collect more fees and spend them citywide
instead of basin by basin. The fees are also set so facilities can be built faster.
Ms. Hayes stated that they looked at four basic alternatives. She prefaced that the
basin was so highly urbanized they ended up with very urban solutions. What the
Board would see tonight would not be typical for Spring Creek, for Fossil Creek or
Cooper Sough Boxelder. When you have your channel as a paved street, you don't
have as many opportunities as you might in an open channel. Here the Board would
see more concrete, more pipe than you would in another basin.
The four alternatives:
Do nothing — We could continue to let damages occur, this was considered
unacceptable, it also poses not only flood damage problem, but also safety and
health issues.
Flood Proofing — If we were only concerned about reducing flood damages, you
could just go in and flood proof every structure in the floodplain. What this doesn't
do is provide emergency access during a storm, it doesn't stop street overtopping,
and it doesn't prevent people from driving into intersections and suffering damage,
or potentially loss of life. In some areas the flood plain is so deep, it is impractical to
flood proof some buildings, especially commercial buildings, where it would really
affect ingress and egress to the building.
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 19, 2000
Page 3
Maximizing regional detention and just get limited regional detention — The first one
means that we would take every significant undeveloped land in the basin and put a
detention pond on it, so to slow the water down. The limited regional detention is to
just take advantage of the land we already own and the ponds we already have, and
making them as big as we possibly could. The differences between the two are
what connects them. If you have more ponds, you can get away with smaller pipes
or channels in between them. If you have fewer ponds, you need to build bigger
pipes or channels that connect them.
Ms. Hayes stated that they did solicit input from a technical team that represented a lot
of city departments. They also have had two public open houses to solicit input from
the public. They have also talked with the ditch companies.
To evaluate projects, they have some basic criteria:
• They want to protect lives and reduce property damage
• They want to control ditch overflows
• Maintain and enhance riparian habitat
• • Include other city goals and policies
• Cost effective — Benefits outweighing the costs in the drainage master plans
Ms. Hayes stated that CSU is very interested in what the city is proposing, because it
does ultimately reduce damages on their property. Staff has also worked with them as
they are preparing their master plan.
Ms. Hayes talked about figures 4 and 5 in the Executive Summary. They represent the
proposed improvements. In general the bright pink represents a pipe or culvert. The
blue represents something that is on the surface such as a detention pond or an open
channel.
• Mulberry Corridor — The corridor will be getting more detention along the basin and
connecting it with a big pipe. A new pond is proposed on the City Park 9 Golf
Course. It will be connected to Sheldon Lake with a pipe. There will also be some
local storm sewers to get the flow up to Sheldon Lake and also some bank
improvements to prevent ditch overflow.
• Plum Channel — It is a combination of two big ponds, the Glenmoor Pond and the
West Orchard Pond connected with pipe or open channel. They are already in the
process of negotiating the purchase of the Glenmoor property.
• New Mercer Canal — They are doing something that might not be considered an
engineering practice. They are capturing the water and turning it 90 degrees. We
• don't have an open channel or any way for the water, once it gets past the ditch, to
head down Elizabeth. So as in the 1980 Master Plan, staff is proposing to pipe the
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 19, 2000
Page 4
irrigation flows along the New Mercer and take the remaining right-of-way and make
a channel as big as they possibly can to carry the storm flows. This will involve
tearing up the right-of-way, fence line to fence line. From Elizabeth Street south to
the canal importation channel will involve taking out the trees along the New Mercer.
Staff has talked to the Natural Resources Staff and have inventoried what is out
there. Most of the trees along the fence line are non-native, so they are comfortable
with taking them out. Native vegetation will be planted; however, it will look very
structural. The benefit is it allows us to not to have to touch the Larimer Il. The
original 1980 Master Plan actually shows tearing up the ditches from Mulberry all the
way down to canal importation channel, both ditches. She expects this will be the
most controversial portion of the plan in terms of neighborhood impact. They are
working with the neighborhood to make sure they are fully aware of what they are
proposing.
Canal Importation Channel — They already have two ponds, the Red Fox Meadows
Natural Area and the Fairbrooke Pond. Both ponds need to be made bigger, as well
as the King Property, which was recently purchased by Stormwater Utility and
Natural Resources. Detention will be added in that area. This will be a wonderful
opportunity to add more wetlands to this area. Further to the west a pond will be
built at Overland Trail and Prospect at the old substation. They are proposing a pipe
outfall down Prospect and it will discharge into the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal.
Because of limited right-of-way, they will be piping the irrigation flows and making
the surface channel as large as it can to carry the storm flows.
Southern Portion of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal — In order to prevent an
overflow again, a parallel ditch is being built next to the irrigation canal, which will
intercept all the flow that comes from the west and carry it down to Spring Creek.
Ms. Hayes stated that the essence of the improvements are highly structural and very
expensive as a result. The results of the plan are positive. We will be able to provide
100-year protection for the majority of the properties in the basin. There will be a
reduction in the number of structures damaged from 700 to 64, and we can reduce flood
damages in just a 100-year event from almost $26,000,000 to $2,400,000. When you
analyze that over 50 years, it is a reduction from $123,000,000 to the do nothing, to
$14,000,000.
Ms. Hayes stated that there is a cost estimate of over $49,000,000 to implement this
plan. The cost of previously planned improvements, which means that a portion of the
1980 Master Plan was built out, but there are things left to do, is $22,300,000. There is
a $27,000,000 increase. Over half the increase is for additional projects that were
never in the original Master Plan. The other half is for building bigger ponds, bigger
channel along the New Mercer and to build the ponds bigger along the Canal
Importation Channel.
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 19, 2000
Page 5
Ms. Hayes reported that staff does not yet know what the impact will be on the
Stromwater Fees. They will either have to go up if we want to keep the construction
schedule compact or if it is not acceptable to raise fees, the construction schedule will
have to be extended. These projects will compete citywide with all the projects that
have to occur in the city.
Ms. Hayes stated that there is also the issue of Floodplain Regulations. We previously
did not have a floodplain designated in the Canal Importation Basin with the 1980 plan.
With this plan, staff has mapped a floodplain and it will be adopted with the Master Plan
and all properties in the floodplain will be subject to the current floodplain regulations.
This will be administered as a no rise floodplain.
Ms. Hayes reviewed the public outreach. She has visited the Golf Board, Parks and
Recreation Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board and the Water Board and its
Engineering Committee. She has had a couple of public open houses and she is
setting up some neighborhood meetings. Ms. Hayes stated that this has been a very
complex, convoluted Master Plan. Because of its complexity, staff has tried to touch
base with the affected property owners so that they buy into it and staff understands the
• limitations of what they want to build. The last thing staff wants is to adopt a plan that is
under funded and has not adequately addressed the constructability or go to a site that
we can't get property or permission to build something that they would like to.
Member Craig asked about phasing of the project.
Ms. Hayes stated that the first priority is to get additional detention in the Canal
Importation ponds, which would allow them to implement and build the New Mercer
improvements. They can't even begin to divert water into the system without being able
to slow down the water from the west. That design should begin next year. The New
Mercer would follow and then improvements along the Plum Channel. The Mulberry
Channel would be phased and is one of the last priorities in the basin right now. There
really is no set schedule, it will be based on the level of fees and if there is enough
money and once there are more master plans on board, the priorities may change
again.
Member Craig asked if the places that flooded during the 1997 flood are covered.
Ms. Hayes responded that construction did not stop because of the Master Plan. There
are two projects that are continuing on in the basin. One is the Fairbrooke Heights
pond, which is along the Canal Importation Faribrooke Channel. The pond was resized
and reconstructed. There is also the rodeo detention pond next to Hughes Stadium,
• which is also being constructed.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 19, 2000
Page 6
Member Craig asked about concerns of other Boards.
Ms. Hayes replied that concerns were impact on fees and the significant cost increase.
Natural Resources was concerned with the irrigation canals. In talking to them they feel
comfortable with the fact that New Mercer is being torn up, and they are particularly
pleased that the Larimer II will not be impacted. Issues are still being worked out to
make the New Mercer as compatible as possible with north south movement of wildlife.
That may not be known until final design. On the Pleasant Valley and Lake system,
there is plenty of right-of-way, additional wetlands in the area have been discussed, and
being able to plant more trees than there are currently. The detention ponds have been
discussed and they are open to the changes to the Red Fox Meadows area.
Member Meyer asked if Stormwater intends to put citizens into a floodplain, have they
contacted them and let them know what that means.
Ms. Hayes responded that they have all been contacted through the Master Planning
process. She would have to say that they have not sent a specific letter telling them
that they will now be in a floodplain and this is the result. She acknowledged that it
would be a good idea, after the plan is adopted, to send a letter to the 700 people. The
property owners will get onto their mailing list that each year notifies all properties in the
floodplain that they are in a floodplain and what that means.
Member Meyer felt they should be notified before they do it to them. As she
understands it, the city is affecting the value of their property with the new floodplain
regulations and no one has been told. She has a real concern about that.
Ms. Hayes stated that they have been invited to open houses. Specific invitations were
sent to everyone in a floodplain to say come to the open house.
Member Meyer stated that prior to the new floodplain regulations it really was not an
issue, now it is an issue.
Ms. Hayes responded that the new floodplain regulations for the Poudre River would not
apply here. Those were only for the Poudre River; the standard floodplain regulations
apply here.
Member Gavaldon felt Member Meyer was bringing up a good point and asked if there
were any records of comments made at the open houses they could review.
Ms. Hayes replied she could provide the Board with that information
0
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 19, 2000
Page 7
Member Gavaldon asked if CSU was helping defer any costs for benefit of their
improvements.
Ms. Hayes replied not at this point. They have limited funds and they are spending
most of it on campus. Staff has talked to them and they don't object to going off
campus if there is something that would benefit the campus. She pointed out that the
improvements not only benefit CSU, but also all the other properties.
Member Gavaldon asked about fees and what would the increase in the monthly fee be.
Ms. Hayes replied that the increase has not been calculated because they do not know
if there will be an increase. The choice may be to extend the schedule and keep the
fees the same. Staff has asked their finance staff to look at the effects of keeping the
current construction schedule that was adopted in 1998, how would the fees have to
change in order to implement the plan.
Member Gavaldon felt the cart might be before the horse. Staff wanted a
recommendation to Council, but he felt the communication process to the people has
• been looked at, the fee structure of what the cause and effect is of such a program. I
was also not determined what the stormwater fees would be for new construction.
Member Gavaldon felt this was all information that this Board needed to make a
recommendation to Council.
Ms. Hayes responded that she could provide the pubic comment for review, but in terms
of the fees, as part of the Master Plan adoption, we are not necessarily adopting a new
fee structure. Fees will be adjusted on a budget cycle. What staff is asking for is a
recommendation on the technical plan rather than the funding components of the plan.
Council will adopt the funding options.
Member Gavaldon felt that the Board was giving a recommendation on something that
would have a big impact. He suggested deferring a recommendation on this matter until
some of these questions are answered.
PUBLIC INPUT
Nathaniel Paulbarkeet, citizen, asked what the impacts on the environment would be
during construction.
Ms. Hayes replied that during construction, the fish are relocated downstream from the
construction location. Once construction is complete and the water is returned to base
• flow conditions, the fish have a chance to migrate back upstream, or there is an
opportunity to restock.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 19, 2000
Page 8
Mr. Paulbarkeet asked about impacts on foxes and other wildlife
Ms. Hayes stated that she would not consider herself an expert on animal movement.
In terms of actual creatures that are in the water, we have the ability to move them
during construction. For other animals, she does not know of a difficulty that they have
had during construction. Her guess would be that they find alternate means through the
site through surface streets. She did not know that absolutely for a fact.
Member Torgerson asked for the percentage of developable land in this basin.
Ms. Hayes replied that a good estimate would be that it is 90% developed. Most of the
open space that is left is city owned.
Member Torgerson asked about funding and how did the monthly fees and new
development fees break down for new projects.
Ms. Hayes replied she did not have a percentage, but the monthly fees are far greater
than the new development fees. Particularly in this basin, new development fees will
practically be none. New development fees are not used citywide; they are only used in
their basin. It is only the monthly fee that is used citywide.
Member Carpenter asked if the ditch companies are liable for any of this.
Ms. Hayes replied that their only liability is in carrying the irrigation flows. If the ditches
are not overtopping for the purposes of carrying their decreed flow, they are not liable
for carrying storm flows or overtopping during a storm.
Member Gavaldon asked about the West Vine Basin and would that basin and this one
have any effect on each other in terms of relationships.
Ms. Hayes replied that physically they are separated, the only connection between them
is the irrigation canals. Financially, that basin is different because it is in the County.
The County has adopted a stormwater utility fee, and that will be combined with a city
portion for the city residents will be combined to pay for those improvements.
Member Craig asked about the cost benefit formula and the use of a 50-year project life.
She asked where they came up with 50 years.
Ms. Hayes replied that is an engineering standard, that assuming that after 50 years,
major maintenance or repair will be needed on a structure. The assumption is the life of
the project is 50 years.
•
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 19, 2000
Page 9
Chairperson Colton would like to see more information on how we arrived at the cost
benefit, and what the assumptions were. He asked for more assumptions with different
cost analysis and benefits.
Ms. Hayes replied that the city strives to give 100-year protection and typically we will
back off and provide a lower level if we can't get a benefit cost ratio greater than one. In
this particular instance, based on the feedback they have and the decision -makers
involved, they have proceeded with the 100-year protection.
Ms. Hayes stated that in this basin, the benefits are the reduction in damages to
structures during flooding. For each event they have analyzed, in this case it was the 2-
year, 10-year and 100-year, we know approximately how deep the water is, how much it
is standing on a structure. There are standardized curves that will calculate based on
the value of a home, how much damage it would suffer with one, two or three feet of
water on it. They then multiply that by the probability of the event occurring and then
they are added all up. The benefits are just damage reduction only.
• Chairperson Colton stated that before he could make a strong recommendation, he
would like to see some other alternatives and also the funding mechanism.
Member Torgerson commented that his concern was that adopting this plan will raise
fees, in all likelihood, but we are also putting people in a regulatory floodplain and he
was concerned that those residents are not aware of what is happening to them.
Member Torgerson asked if flood insurance would be required for these residents.
Ms. Hayes replied that it is not required by the city. It is not a FEMA regulated
floodplain.
Member Torgerson asked if more water is being diverted to Spring Creek that currently
runs there.
Ms. Hayes replied that the area south of Prospect already drains into Spring Creek.
The area that might be imported is the Clearview Channel area that will come to the
New Mercer Canal and will be diverted south of Prospect. She stated that they would
ensure that there would be no impact on Spring Creek.
Member Gavaldon commented that he felt that the Board was missing some key
components of information and some notification and some financial information before
isa recommendation can be given. He suggested a continuance to get the information.
He felt they needed the financials and the notification of the 700 owners and their
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
October 19, 2000
Page 10
impacts. Member Gavaldon asked for the financial impacts, in terms of what the
increase would be for the monthly bill.
Chairperson Colton added that he would also like to see other alternatives that were
considered and what the pay costs and paybacks were of the other alternatives. Also
the discounted cash flow analysis of the different alternatives.
Ms. Hayes asked if he was asking for less expensive alternatives.
Chairperson Colton replied yes.
Member Gavaldon moved to continue the recommendation until the December 7,
2000 hearing. The Board asked that additional information be brought,
specifically the financial analysis noted by himself and Chairperson Colton.
Copies of the Open House comments and the notification to the property owners
about being designated in a floodplain.
Member Meyer seconded the motion.
Member Torgerson asked that a notification process be included in the motion to
notify the city as a whole as community outreach.
Member Gavaldon and Meyer accepted the amendment.
Member Gavaldon asked that information be included on CSU and what their
contribution would be to this so we have an understanding.
Member Carpenter commented that she was concerned about the Board looking so
heavily into the financial areas. She felt the Board should be looking at this from a land
use planning aspect. She did not feel it was in their purview, it was Councils.
Member Bernth agreed with Member Carpenter about the financials being out of the
Board's scope.
The motion to continue was approved 4-3 with Members Bernth, Torgerson and
Carpenter voting in the negative.
There was no other business.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m