HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 01/28/1991PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
• January 28,1991
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board
members present included Chairman Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Joe Carroll, Laurie O'Dell,
Lloyd Walker and Margaret Gorman. Member Jan Cottier was absent.
Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Ted Shepard, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Kerrie
Ashbeck, Susan Hayes, Mike Herzig, Paul Eckman, and Kayla Ballard.
Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent Agenda which consisted of: Item I -
October 22, 1990 and December 17, 1990 minutes; Item 2 - Overland Hills Subdivision, 2nd
Filing, Final, Case #38-80C; Item 3 - Chesterfield, Bottomsley, Potts Parking Lot PUD, Final,
Case #52-90; Item 4 -Utility Easement Vacation Lake Sherwood Subdivision, Case #PZ91-1;
Item 5 -Eagle Lake Subdivision, County Referral, Case #3-91. The Discussion Agenda consisted
of Item 6 - PZ91-2 Erosion Control Manual, Case #4-91. Mr. Peterson noted Clarendon Hills
Subdivision 4th and 5th Filings, Center Greens at Southridge Greens Final, Foothills Auto
Plaza Final, and Moreland PUD Final, Discussion Items were continued to the February 4, 1991,
meeting due to an error by the Coloradoan.
Item 5 was pulled by staff and placed on the discussion agenda.
Chairman Klataske asked for questions on Consent Items.
Member Strom asked that Item 1, the October 22 minutes, reflect a minor correction of the
deletion of a "not" to make statement a positive.
Albert Barnes, 2637 W. County Road 40, asked that Overland Hills Subdivision be pulled for
further discussion.
Member Carroll moved to approve Items 1, 3, 4. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion
carried 6-0.
Chairman Klataske requested Mr. Barnes' comments. Mr. Barnes stated he lived in an area
immediately to the south and, while not complaining about the subdivision, was concerned that
the lots and houses to be built would have septic systems. He felt septic systems should not be
permitted within the City, but should be served by the City's modern sewage system. His
second concern regarded the right-of-way requirement for Overland Trail at this location.
Since this road had not been designated as a major arterial and, since he felt Overland would
not sufficiently develop to require a multiple lane divided highway in this location, this
requirement should be dropped.
Mr. Eckman stated that the code required that, if the structure was within 400 feet of the
public sewer system, it must be connected; further than that, it may be served by septic if it
meets Larimer County health requirements. He believed the nearest sewer line was
approximately 3/4 mile away.
Mike Herzig, Development Coordinator, stated the sewer line which would serve this area was
approximately 1/2 mile to the north, requiring the Spring Creek alignment to be extended. The
County would allow for the septic tanks in the interim and, when the extension was there, the
0 1
P&Z Board Meeting Minutes
January 28, 1991
subdivision would be required to hook in if the septic system doesn't meet the County's needs.
In regards to the Overland Trail concern, the alignment was not actually official in
conformance with the Master Street Plan since the alignment followed a section line. A couple
years ago a study determined the alignment should follow the slope of the Foothills. If the
alignment should change at final adoption of the street plan, this right-of-way, if not needed,
would be vacated. We feel this requirement is based on our best study of where the road should
occur.
Chairman Klataske asked the width required.
Mr. Herzig stated it was 120 feet of right-of-way width, allowing for a six -lane arterial street
in conformance with the current Master Street Plan. He stated that this may be revised when
a new street plan is adopted as current traffic projections are coming in less than previously
determined.
Member O'Dell asked what happened to land designated as right-of-way.
Mr. Herzig indicated it would be vacated and then go back to the property owners who had
dedicated the right-of-way.
Chairman Klataske asked for other input. With no other input, he asked for Board comments
or a motion.
Member Strom moved to approve Overland Hills 2nd Filing, Final Subdivision. He indicated
that he expected a new transportation plan would take care of Overland Trail alignment and
width concerns. Member Walker seconded the motion.
Chairman Klataske stated the requirement to hook up to sanitary sewer seemed to be addressed
for the future. Member Carroll concurred and stated he believed it would be impossible to have
the hookup at this time.
The motion passed 6-0.
EAGLE LAKE SUBDIVISION COUNTY REFERRAL -Case 03-91
Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a description stating the 16 single family subdivision was
consistent with the Larimer County Land Use Plan. She stated the City recommended approval
with the following revised condition: "That the applicant provide access to the Lake for the use
of residents in the development in an area that does not impact wild life habitat and/or
wetlands." This was a change allowing for one access point rather than specifying the access
come from the eight waterfront lots. The applicant proposed an area in the southwest corner
of the site.
Chairman Klataske asked for clarification of location of the proposed area
Ms. Albertson -Clark pointed out two possible areas.
2
• P&Z Board Meeting Minutes
January 28, 1991
Chairman Klataske asked if the area to the north of the eight lots was included.
Ms. Albertson -Clark responded that at the present time, it was not included but was under one
ownership.
Chairman Klataske asked if there were any questions from the Board or citizens, of the
developer. There were none.
Member O'Dell asked who would decide how this access would be shown on the plat.
Ms. Albertson -Clark indicated it would be worked out by the applicant and the County,
assuming the County also adopted the proposed condition.
Karl Shakel, the developer, noted they had written into the covenants that there would be a
boat access and they would be glad to commit to giving a letter if required.
Member O'Dell moved to recommend approval of Eagle Lake Subdivision to the County with the
proposed condition. The motion was seconded by Member Carroll. The motion carried 6-0.
PZ91-2 EROSION CONTROL MANUAL, Case #4-91
Susan Hayes, Stormwater Utility Civil Engineer, presented a brief presentation of the final
erosion control proposal for construction sites and requested a recommendation from the Board
recommending to Council the adoption of these criteria.
Ms. Hayes stated that City Council had set a goal to preserve and enhance the environment of
the City of Fort Collins. A subgoal was for the utility to revise the code with respect to
stormwater quality. This was also a goal at the Federal level, as the Environmental Protection
Agency had recently passed rules requiring communities to protect and enhance their
stormwater runoff. A key was implementing erosion control criteria.
Ms. Hayes continued with the questions: Why was erosion considered so important? Why was
it a problem? Wasn't it a natural process? Dirt couldn't possibly be bad, it's all around us.
When erosion is natural, it isn't bad and, in small amounts, dirt isn't a pollutant; however, when
we construct on a site and tear off the vegetation that protects the soil, we leave it vulnerable
to being picked up by both wind and water and carried into our streams and lakes and into our
air. In large amounts, it becomes a pollutant. In fact, on a nationwide level, sediment was, by
volume, the greatest water pollutant. It caused other problems, too . It could lower both air
and water quality. It carried other pollutants into our streams and lakes; it could carry gas, oil,
heavy metals, nutrients. It destroyed fish and wildlife habitats. And it could also clog our
drainage facilities, not only decreasing their function but increasing the maintenance costs for
maintaining those facilities. Therefore, having a viable erosion control program was important
in controlling the quality of our stormwater runoff. We had only guidelines for the utility to
follow that are a part of our storm drainage design criteria and construction standards. They
were not clear enough or gave enough guidance to a user to apply effectively; therefore, we
• needed to prepare very detailed criteria to be followed and also to allow for enforcement.
3
P&Z Board Meeting Minutes
January 28,1991
Ms. Hayes continued by stating the process the City followed was fairly long and arduous. The
City started approximately two years ago by hiring an expert consultant in erosion control.
With the help of an ad hoc committee made up of representatives from both the private sector
and the public sector, the City was able to establish an initial direction for the criteria and
establish some very clear objectives for the consultant to follow. These three criteria were:
1. Any criteria the City created had to be tied to the City of Fort Collins' climate and soil.
2. Criteria had to be practical to implement without causing significant financial hardship to
the users.
3. Criteria had to be tied to the existing City process for reviewing, improving, and inspecting
projects. The City did not want to create a separate process for City departments and
developers to follow.
Ms. Hayes stated that while the consultant prepared the City's criteria, the City received a lot
of input from people and tried to keep the issue in front of the public. The City prepared a
brochure that the Board received, and that was sent out to consultants and contractors and
developers requesting their voluntary use of the measures to get used to the idea, to start using
them, to see what worked. The City had a couple of seminars where they presented the erosion
control concept. The City encouraged the voluntary use on subdivisions and PUDs. The City
had been using erosion control measures on its own utility projects for several years. The City
had an open house last spring presenting the criteria and also had a formal public review and
comment period over the past several months. The City kept the Boards involved. She stated
that she had been before the P&Z Board several times keeping them involved and gathering
their input. The City had also gone to the Natural Resources Advisory Board and the Storm
Drainage Board. As shown in the packet, both the Natural Resources Advisory Board and the
Storm Drainage Board had unanimously approved these criteria and recommended to Council
that they adopt them.
She stated that when the City had the draft criteria, they formed a smaller review committee
made up of the ad hoc committee and also had representatives from private consulting, private
contracting and private development as well as City staff. This committee spent well over 50
hours reviewing those criteria in detail over several months. They hashed over the details,
made sure it met the initial objectives, they simplified the process, they tried to anticipate
problems. They know they still have to try these criteria out but she believed they have made
a very honest attempt to make sure problems were addressed up front.
She stated that before she could describe the results, she wanted to make one comment about
the fact that the City of Fort Collins was very often thought of as being the leader of the pack
in coming up with new and innovative programs. Some people think this was great, other
people think we are just out in left field and we don't need any more innovative programs to
add to the cost. It's important to note we are not the leader of the pack in erosion control -we
are no where near. We took a survey of approximately 25 communities and counties along the
Front Range: 13 already had criteria in place. Of the remaining 12, 3 were currently preparing
criteria, 2 have guidelines to follow and only 7 have no criteria whatsoever, although they were
all aware of the new EPA guidelines and recognize that they will have to do something within
4
r
a •
P&Z Board Meeting Minutes
January 28, 1991
the next couple of years. Even though The city was not leading the pack on implementing the
criteria, she believed that the City was leading the pack on preparing good criteria that meets
the needs of the use of the City of Fort Collins and that they were not generic in scope.
Ms. Hayes stated that the City had detailed criteria for construction sites, and has revised the
storm drainage design criteria and construction standards. The Board has received those
revised sections. This was the City's enforcement document. The City has also prepared a
reference manual for the ease of users to give them a little more background on how they came
up with the methods and to provide a few more examples of how to accomplish this. These
criteria are a combination of common sense and technical equations. She has received some
feedback from people saying it seemed like overkill to apply the technical equations; common
sense would appear to do the job. The committee discussed this feedback. The problem with
providing only common sense was that, since we do not intend to go out on the site to measure
erosion, we have no way of knowing if the criteria had been met. The only way we have to do
that was to apply some equations and to have trust in those equations, that the developers
would provide us with an erosion control plan that was effective. It also allowed me, as a
reviewer and enforcer of erosion control plans, to be fair and consistent from project to
project, that I could apply the same criteria, the same equations, to each developer and know
that they would be treated equally.
She stated that she believed the criteria was reasonable. The criteria has been tied to City of
. Fort Collins' soils and climate. They are very low tech measures: We are using chicken wire,
gravel, straw bales, cinder blocks, silt fences; everything that was readily available and could
be installed with normal construction equipment or hand labor. They were intimately tied to
the City review, approval, and inspection process and they fully intend to implement this using
existing City staff for both review and inspection.
•
She stated that the City was not naive enough to think that this would not cost any money, for
we knew it would cost money to incorporate erosion control measures onto a construction site.
Some studies have shown that erosion control measures could be cost effective if compared to
the cost of cleaning up the mess created by erosion. However, historically, they haven't
enforced cleanup so this would be viewed as a direct cost to construction projects. They have
done some sample plans and, due to the low tech nature of the measures, she believed the cost
increases would be reasonable. The sample plan for a residential project in the City, when you
add up the cost of building the measures and spread them out among all the developed lots in
the subdivision, add less than one percent to the cost of a developed lot.
She stated that the City recognized that these criteria were new and we were not the erosion
control experts. This hasn't been done a lot in the City so the City realized that they will have
to be flexible and open to suggestions as these criteria are implemented. The technology
changes very quickly with new products on the market. Due to this, the City review committee
has recommended that we make a commitment to revisit the criteria in approximately one year,
after one season of trying it, to reevaluate what worked, what didn't work, what needed to be
changed. We will make that commitment.
5
P&Z Board Meeting Minutes
January 28,1991
She stated that, in conclusion, she believed this was a reasonable approach to controlling
erosion on construction sites. It minimized financial impact while meeting the goal of
preserving the quality of our environment. Therefore, she requested that the Board recommend
adoption of these criteria.
Chairman Klataske asked for Board questions.
Member Gorman asked the penalty for non-conformance to this code.
Susan Hayes responded that there were several enforcement tools currently a part of the system
such as stopping work on the site, denying building permits or Certificates of Occupancy, and
also calling the security (cash or performance bond) put up by the developer and using the
money to install the measures ourselves.
Member Walker commended Storm Drainage for their work on the measure and believed it was
in a timely matter. Member O'Dell stated she was pleased to see this and hoped it would be in
place soon.
Ms. Hayes thanked the review committee for their commitment of 50 hours of time.
Member Strom moved to approve recommendation of the resolution supporting the adoption of
the Erosion Control Criteria. Member Walker seconded. Motion carried 6-0.
Meeting adjourned at 7:15 pm.
0