HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/15/2005 - SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 037, 2005, REPEALI ITEM NUMBER: 17
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: March 15, 2005
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Jim Hibbard
Bob Smith
Marsha Hilmes - Robinson
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 037, 2005, Repealing and Reenacting Article II of Chapter 10
of the City Code Regarding Flood Hazard Areas.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. The Water Board and the
Planning and Zoning Board recommend adoption of the Ordinance.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 1, 2005, modifies
the City Code to reflect changes to the floodplain regulations that balance risk with regulation
for floodplains citywide, excluding the Poudre River floodplain. Regulations for the floodway
(areas of the highest risk) are more restrictive than for areas in the floodplain fringe and
moderate risk areas. Regulations are more restrictive for new development and less restrictive
for existing development. Residential development has more restrictive regulations than non-
residential development. Areas of the lowest flood hazard, moderate risk floodplains, are not
subject to any restrictions.
Other changes to the Code include the incorporation of restrictions for erosion buffer zones,
which have previously been addressed in stormwater master plans. Revisions were also made to
bring the Code into compliance with current FEMA criteria. To make the City Code more user
friendly and easier to understand, the entire Flood Hazard article (Article II) was rewritten and
more details were added to clarify specific types of development activities and the applicable
floodplain requirements. The section regarding the Poudre River floodplain has no policy
changes but was changed to be in the same format.
Public outreach was completed during the formulation of the floodplain regulation changes
which included mailings, open houses, boards and commissions review and newspaper articles.
City Council discussed this item at its January 13, 2004, and February 8, 2005, study sessions.
ITEM NUMBER: 26
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: March 1, 2005
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Jim Hibbard
Bob Smith
Marsha Hilmes - Robinson
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 037, 2005, Repealing and Reenacting Article II of Chapter 10 of
the City Code Regarding Flood Hazard Areas.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. The Water Board and the
Planning and Zoning Board recommend adoption of the Ordinance.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Adoption of the Ordinance 11 havejiEconodthie ty Budget, but will decrease the
discount on premiums paid by eris f n ce policies in the city by 5% or
community wide by $9,256.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed ordinance modifies the City Code to reflect changes to the floodplain regulations
that balance risk with regulation for floodplains citywide, excluding the Poudre River floodplain.
Regulations for the floodway (areas of the highest risk) are more restrictive than for areas in the
floodplain fringe and moderate risk areas. Regulations are more restrictive for new development
and less restrictive for existing development. Residential development has more restrictive
regulations than non-residential development. Areas of the lowest flood hazard, moderate risk
floodplains, are not subject to any restrictions.
Other changes to the Code i ude nco r o f frictions for erosion buffer zones,
which have previously been a flressed sto a aster s. Revisions were also made to
bring the Code into compliancit 6urrnt criteria. o make the City Code more user
friendly and easier to understand, the entire Flood Hazard article (Article II) was rewritten and
more details were added to clarify specific types of development activities and the applicable
floodplain requirements. The section regarding the Poudre River floodplain has no policy
changes but was changed to be in the same format.
March 1, 2005 -2- Item No. 26
Public outreach was completed during the formulation of the floodplain regulation changes
which included mailings, open houses, boards and commissions review and newspaper articles.
City Council discussed this item at its January 13, 2004, and February 8, 2005, study sessions.
BACKGROUND AND PAST CI DIR
The City of Fort Collins has participated in the National Flood Insurance Program since 1979,
which enables property owners to purchase flood insurance through this federal program. Part of
that participation includes the City's enforcement of floodplain regulations on existing and new
development in the various floodplains across the city. Undeveloped properties located in a
floodplain are allowed to develop as long as they comply with the floodplain regulations. The
Fort Collins Utilities is charged with the administration of these regulations. The purpose of the
enforcement of the regulations is to reduce the potential for loss of life and damage to properties
located in or near these floodplains. Periodically the City has revised or updated these
floodplain regulations.
Floodplain regulations were first adopted in the city in the mid 1970's for the Poudre River. In
1979 the City of Fort Collins entered the National Flood Insurance Program based on updated
floodplain regulations for the Poudre River, and newly adopted floodplain regulations for the
Spring Creek, and Dry Creek s. Betwee r79 , Id 1 enforcement of floodplain
regulations was expanded to of er b s s w;in e L ity as e master plans for those basins
were adopted.
i
FEMA basin floodplains have now been established in the Poudre River, Spring Creek, Dry
Creek, Cooper Slough and Boxelder Creek basins. In the FEMA basins there are minimum
standards set by FEMA that must be met in order to participate in the National Flood Insurance
Program. However, FEMA encourages and supports communities that go beyond the minimum
FEMA regulations to add new or stricter requirements in both FEMA and locally designated
floodplains.
Several of the floodplains in the city have not been submitted to or approved by FEMA. In these
floodplains the City has the option to establish floodplain criteria less restrictive than the FEMA
minimum. City basin floodplains are located in the Old Town, West Vine, McClellands/Mail
Creek, Canal Importation, Foothills and Fossil Creek basins.
After the 1997 flood, questions were raised concerning the adequacy of the City's floodplain
regulations. City Council direct d ty s o r t ooatns across the city and make
recommendations on changes es(In the o la r 14 ions for the Poudre River were
reviewed and changes to the r ulation ere o Reg tions for the other basins were to
be reviewed as the City re map the' 1 - fl dplains ing the development of the basin
master plans using the updated rainfall standard.
In 2001, the Canal Importation Basin Master Plan and floodplain were adopted by City Council.
Floodplain regulations were initially adopted for both existing and new development. However,
several months later, City Council suspended regulations for platted and existing development
on an interim basis until the citywide review could be completed. However, City Council
retained the requirement that new development and critical facilities in that basin continue to
March 1, 2005 -3- Item No. 26
comply with the floodplain regulations as contained in City Code. At that time, staff was
instructed to review the City's floodplain regulations for all basins other than the Poudre River
with the goal of balancing risk with regulation.
In September of 2001, the U '1' G eral„ vianag w, g' 'en the authority to remap the
floodplains using the higher nfall dard. 'T mg was completed in 2002 and
2003.
On January 13, 2004, City Council held a study session on the proposed floodplain regulation
revisions. Staff received the following input:
• Council agreed with staffs approach of balancing risk with regulation.
• Most Councilmembers did not have comments on specific regulations. There was one
concern about allowing critical facilities in the moderate risk zone, i.e. 500-year
floodplain or 100-year sheet flow areas with an average depth of 1-foot.
• There was general support for making the changes although they will change the
community flood insurance rating from a class 4 CRS rating to a class 5.
• Two members of the Council expressed concern about proposed regulations less strict
than FEMA minimums, while others felt it was appropriate.
During that discussion, City Council asked for the following additional information:
• What impact do floodp ain regulations v6on prop values?
The City's Real Estate Services Depa tMA-performed an audit of home sales in four
areas of the city. That audit compared home sales outside of the floodplain with
comparable homes sold in the floodplain. The results of this analysis found that there
was no discernable difference in sale price compared to those in the floodplain and those
outside the floodplain. However, in some cases those in the floodplain did have a higher
sales price than those outside of the floodplain.
• What is the probability of a 500-year event over the life of a 30-year mortgage?
There is a 5.8% chance that there will be a 500 year flood over a 30 year mortgage on a
home. There is a 26% chance of a 100-year event over that same period.
• Provide an example of a typical 500-year floodplain map.
A map showing an exa l a fl ar Ian presented at the February $
2005 study session. `'t..
On February 8, 2005, City Co 1°hel -s dy ion orr the proposed floodplain regulation
revisions. The following key discussion points were provided by Council:
• Council still agreed with staffs approach of balancing risk with regulation.
• There were no changes to specific regulations. Two Council members had concern
with allowing certain types (gas stations, schools and health care facilities) of critical
facilities in the moderate risk floodplain. Another Council member supported the
staff recommendation and indicated a willingness to consider more restrictive
March 1, 2005 -4- Item No. 26
regulations on some types of critical facilities and less restrictive regulations on
others.
• There was general consensus that it is acceptable to change from a class 4 CRS rating
to a class 5, however, some expressed concern that the critical facility regulation in
the moderate risk flood f rd
During that discussion, City C ncil asdd onal info ation in the following areas:
• Number of critical facilities in the moderate risk floodplain.
Schools— 3
Gas Stations— 2
Utility Facility— 1
Emergency Response Facility— 1 (City Hall
Hazardous Material Storage— 1
• An evaluation of the risk to certain types of critical facilities
Flows in the moderate risk floodplains are the shallowest and slowest
compared to the other floodplains. These types of flows can generally be
traversed by vehicles and pedestrians and are not likely to cause structural
damage or large amounts of floating debris. See the attached February 15,
2005 staff memorandum to Council.
Floodplain Maps and Prope Statis ` s
revised cit ide o� la a ed. T -flood floodplains on this ma are the
A map of theyw p p p
maximum extent of the existing (FEMA) mapping and the new City mapping. The 100-year
floodways (areas of greatest risk with high depths and velocities) are shown in dark blue. The
100-year flood fringe is shown in light blue. The moderate risk areas, shown in green, are either
the existing FEMA 500-year floodplain in the Poudre River basin or areas of sheet flow in the
100-year floodplain in the other basins. The 500-year floodplain will not be mapped in basins
other than the Poudre River. Citywide statistics for the 100-year floodplain are shown in the
following table.
Floodplain Statistics
Floodway Flood Fringe Moderate Risk
Area acres 1 900 1200 500
Number of
Structures 7 0 I Q0. 900
Revised mapping has been submitted to FEMA for the basins that have FEMA basin floodplains,
except for Dry Creek, which will be submitted after the completion of the Dry Creek Flood
Control Project. This will result in only one regulatory map per basin. Floodplain maps are also
revised after each capital improvement project to reflect areas that are no longer in a mapped
floodplain. Since 1997, over 900 structures were removed from the floodplain in the Old Town
basin due to the construction of stormwater capital projects.
March 1, 2005 -5- Item No. 26
Proposed Floodplain Regulations
As staff began review of the floodplain regulations, the purpose of floodplain regulations as
contained in Chapter 10 of the City Code was reviewed and paraphrased into the following
statement of purpose. "` -
"Strive to promote pub1'c safetyO"D aerness of fl ding risks, and reduce public and
private losses from floods-through-enfor ent of odplain criteria that balance risk
with regulation."
To carry out this purpose, three underlying themes were identified:
1. Floodway vs. Flood Fringe
Map a floodway (areas of greatest depths and highest velocity) in all of the City's
floodplains where practical. This allows the higher risk areas to be distinguished from
the floodplain areas of lower risk. Staff is recommending stricter regulations in the
higher risk floodway areas and less restrictive regulations in the remaining 100-year
floodplain.
2. New Development vs. Existing Development
It is important not to create future problems that will place more people at risk and
require those in the fuCpe y rt n pr blems. On the other hand, there
are many existing hod sines s "u ntl floodplains where owners have
normal expectations o to re" o• 1, repair d add to their structures. Staff is
recommending stricteion for n evelopment and less strict regulations for
existing structures.
3. Residential Development vs. Non-Residential Development
From a health and human safety perspective, residential structures represent a higher risk
than commercial structures. Staff is recommending stricter regulations for residential
development and less strict regulations for commercial development.
Compared to the City's current regulations, some of the proposed regulations are more
restrictive, while others are less restrictive. The attached floodplain regulation matrix identifies
the proposed regulation changes. It is color coded to show which changes are more restrictive,
less restrictive, or remain the same when compared to existing regulations. This matrix also
compares the proposed regulations to the FEMA minimum requirements. To help illustrate
these regulations with less complexity, the attached "Proposed Floodplain Regulations Quick
Guide"was prepared. "'
Key Changes to Floodway A as
More Restrictive than Current Regulations
• New residential structures would not be allowed. Currently they are allowed if they
show no-rise.
• New residential additions would not be allowed. Currently they are allowed if they
show no-rise.
March 1, 2005 -6- Item No. 26
• Basements in non-residential new structures and additions would not be allowed.
Currently they are allowed if floodproofed.
Less Restrictive than Current Regulations
r
• Substantial Improvement ime p iod c d m fe of the structure to 1-year.
• Freeboard requirement cha ged fir 8-inches to 6-inches on substantial
improvements and non-re�rdefitia addi ion -
• Utilities General Manager can waive floodplain regulations in a City basin floodplain
if a capital project is under construction. Currently, completion of the project is
required.
• Sub-grade crawl spaces would be allowed per new FEMA guidelines. Currently sub-
grade crawl spaces are not allowed.
Key Changes to Floodplain Fringe Areas
More Restrictive than Current Regulations
• New mobile homes or modular offices would not be allowed except in existing parks
or as a replacement for an existing mobile home or modular office. Currently the
development of new mobile home and modular offices parks are allowed.
C k t
Less Restrictive than Current gulatio
• Substantial Improvemen imt1per from thi fe of the structure to 1-year.
• Improvements on a floor above the flood elevation would not count toward the
substantial improvement amount (50% of current market value) for structures in a
City basin floodplain. Currently all improvements in the structure count toward the
substantial improvement amount.
• Freeboard requirement would be changed from 18-inches to 6-inches on substantial
improvements and additions.
• Utilities General Manager would be able to waive floodplain regulations in a City
basin floodplain if a capital project is under construction. Currently, completion of
the project is required.
• Sub-grade crawl spaces would be allowed per new FEMA guidelines. Currently sub-
grade crawl spaces are not allowed.
Key Changes to Moderate Risk Floodplain Areas
Less Restrictive than Current gulatio
• Allow new critical facile in the 0 -year oodpla nd in the 100-year sheet flow
areas of less than 1-foot. Currently new critical facilities are not allowed in the
moderate risk areas.
• New structures or additions in the 100-year sheet flow areas do not have to be
elevated or floodproofed. Currently they are required to be protected.
March 1, 2005 -7- Item No. 26
Code Language Changes in Erosion Buffer Zones
Erosion buffer zones, identified in the Stormwater Master Plan, are areas along certain streams
that need regulation due to the tendency of the stream to change its alignment. Previously
requirements for erosion buff es .were ad .m er wT the basin master plan. To
consolidate like regulations i o a cd on a, h eg tons for erosion buffer zones are
being added to the floodplain ovn of 1 I. The jority of erosion buffer zones are
along Fossil Creek and Boxelde reek.
Other Changes
There are some minor"housekeeping" items that are included in the proposed code. These items
are needed to make City Code to be compatible with current FEMA terminology and
interpretations.
To make the City Code more user friendly and easier to understand, Article II of Chapter 10 of
the City Code was rewritten and more language was added to clarify specific types of
development activities in the floodplain and their applicable floodplain requirements.
The Poudre River floodplain regulations were rewritten in order to provide a consistent format
and make the Code easier to understand and use. There are no policy or regulatory changes to
the provisions of the Poudre Riv r dp am regul do s. V
Proposed Regulations below EMAf( nimu s
In the past, the City basin floodplains have been regulated the same as the FEMA basin
floodplains with some criteria above the FEMA minimum. However, in the proposed
regulations for the City basin floodplains, two of the criteria are less restrictive than the FEMA
minimum. These are:
1. Improvements on a floor above the flood elevation would not count toward the
substantial improvement amount (50% of current market value).
2. The Utilities General Manager would be able to waive floodplain regulations once a
stormwater capital project is under construction that will remove the structure from
the floodplain.
Effectively, this means that City basin floodplains would be regulated at a lower level than
FEMA floodplains on the above _ it e 's.
Community Rating System d Floo nsur c onsider tions
r,._
Fort Collins currently has one of the highest rated stormwater management programs in the
country based on the FEMA Community Rating System (CRS). The CRS is a voluntary
incentive program that encourages communities to go beyond FEMA minimum requirements for
floodplain management. Based on a rating of numerous stormwater management activities
(public outreach, higher regulatory standards, drainage system maintenance, flood warning, etc.)
residents and businesses of a community receive a discount on their flood insurance premiums.
March 1, 2005 -8- Item No. 26
Fort Collins currently has a Class 4 rating (on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being the best) which
results in a 30% discount on flood insurance premiums.
All structures in Fort Collins are eligible for flood insurance regardless of whether they are
located in a floodplain or not. deliQ�hou
' ' ura�e for any structure in a FEMA
basin floodplain. Lenders ma equirer c or Lures in City basin floodplains or
areas not even mapped in a flo'dplainh is not a mmon practice. The cost of flood
insurance depends on many begamount coverage, deductibles, type of
structure, and how high the structure is elevated above the flood level.
As of November 2004, there are 356 flood insurance policies in Fort Collins. Of the 356
policies, 72% are residential and 28% are non-residential. Changes in regulations as proposed
would result in Fort Collins moving from Class 4 to Class 5. This will result in the City's
discount rate dropping to 25%. The impact of this change is shown in the following table.
Impact of CRS Class Change on Annual Flood Insurance Premiums
Average Annual Average Annual Community Wide
Premium Before Percent Premium After Annual Premium
CRS Class Discount Discount Discount Cost
5 (proposed) 548 25% 407 $144,892
4 current 548 30% 381 $135,636
Difference 5% 9 256
Fort Collins obtained the ClasB rating 20 ving had Class 6 rating since 1995. As of
October 2004, there were 1,006 communities nationwide participating in the CRS program. The
following graph shows the distribution of communities by CRS class:
National Flood Insurance Program
CRS Communities by Class
500
450 - 407
d 400
350 321 1,006 Communites
E 300 66% of NFIP Polices
00 250 196
`0 200
150 -
E 100 53
c 50 - t.. 26 2 1
I now
—_ I
Class 9 Class 8 Class 7 Class 6 Class 5 Class 4 Class 2
The City recently received a $2.7 million Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant from FEMA for
capital projects on Spring Creek. Although our CRS rating was not used as a rating factor in this
application, staff has learned a community's CRS rating will be used as a factor in evaluating
March 1, 2005 -9- Item No. 26
future PDM grant applications. How much weight is given the CRS rating and effect of the
proposed CRS class change on future grant applications is unknown.
There are two specific regulations staff is proposing to become less restrictive that will
effectively result in Fort Coll' `) n9the,inioder
Pterisk
lar ,
i-wants to maintain the Class 4
rating, the following regulatio woulde of the staff recommendation:
• allow no new critical fac -iand
• require the time period for calculation of substantial improvement be cumulative for
10 years (instead of 1 year as proposed) in the FEMA floodplains.
Public Outreach
The process of informing property owners in the City's 12 stormwater basins of upcoming
changes to both the master plan and floodplain regulations began in early 2002 and continued
until late 2003. A variety of communication tools such as customer mailings, web pages, press
releases and media interviews, public meetings and open houses, and outreach to both internal
and external groups potentially affected were used.
In 2002, customers most affected by floodplain boundaries and proposed regulations were
identified as the primary focus of initial outreach. Because a significant number of those within
the mapped floodplains are L C e ' at County staff collaborated on
public outreach.
These customers received a pac that in d prehen ' information about:
• floodplain mapping,
• the review process for floodplain regulations, and
• the impacts on property mapped within the floodplains.
Each property owner/renter also received:
• an individualized floodplain map showing their property relative to the floodplain,
• a flood history for his or her basin, and
• property protection information.
Eight public open houses were held to provide an opportunity for customers and staff to discuss
the information included in the mailings as well as the master planning process. Customers
received mailed invitations an 0 o es w re iV in e Fort Collins Coloradoan and
North Forty News. At the s e tim , eb p e de . ped on the Utilities Web site to
provide additional informatio Over 4 00 p e were maz',ed, and 250 people attended the 8
open houses held during the yea .In 2003, public outreach was expanded to include all property owners and renters in the City's
stormwater drainage basins, not just those within the mapped floodplains. At a kickoff open
house held in February, property owners and renters were invited to learn more about the City's
stormwater drainage basins, floodplains and regulations, safety and flood protections, and the
regional weather patterns that can result in flash flooding.
March 1, 2005 -10- Item No. 26
Following the kickoff, nine additional public open houses were held. Information presented at
the open houses consisted of basin-specific information as well as information about the
citywide planning process, including:
• flooding histories for ea basinoblem
• maps showing identifi basin'pmaps showing propose` olutiq
• PN
proposed floodplain reg ns, ''t a
• stormwater project funding, and
• the process for adoption of master planning and floodplain regulations.
Over 62,000 pieces of mail were sent, including informational packets, basin-wide kickoff
invitations, open house invitations and letters to 24 community organizations. Publicity for the
outreach campaign included media releases and briefings, and advertising in local media.
The nine open houses were attended by 470 people. Of the 24 community organizations
contacted, seven asked for presentations or more information.
Presentations were made to six City boards and commissions, including the Water Board, the
Natural Resources Advisory Board, the Planning and Zoning Board, the Affordable Housing
Board, Landmark Preservation Board and Parks and Recreation Board. The Water Board and
the Planning and Zoning Bo d"'io e a t' threcommended changes. The
consensus of the Affordable using and s a e ap roach was reasonable and agreed
with the proposed changes. e Nat Res rc Adviso Board, the Parks and Recreation
Board and the Landmark efvati o sion ited not to provide a formal
recommendation. Their comments were included in the summary of comments however.
Comment forms were available at the open houses and on the Utilities Web site. Thirty-three
comment forms were submitted. Although most of those who attended open houses did not
comment formally on either the proposed master plan or floodplain regulations, almost everyone
got a chance to express their views to staff.
Comments received on floodplain issues can generally be summarized as follows:
• questions about the rainfall standard, never seen that much water, even in 1997,
• agreed with the themes used to balance risk with regulation,
• questions about the accuracy of the mapping, offered data for review,
• regulations have a financial impact on property owners,
• regulations are too stric s
• regulations are not stri enough
• would like different re lation� each as ,
• properties in floodplains y for nsu cc
in addition to stormwater rates, and
• they benefited from remapping and would like the City to submit to FEMA as soon as
possible.
March 1, 2005 -11- Item No. 26
ATTACHMENTS
1. City of Fort Collins Flood Risk Map
2. Floodplain Regulation Revie le arix)P5',
,.
3. Proposed Floodplain Regu ions k G "'4. Council Memo dated Feb ry 15, 5 ReFacilities in Moderate Risk Floodplains
11
5. Water Board Minutes Exce ,dated t 003,.
6. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Excerpt dated April 15, 2004
7. Affordable Housing Board Minutes Excerpt dated August 7, 2003
C 0—, P Y
ky�ry