The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/22/2011 - CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS DATE: February 22, 2011 WORK SESSION ITEM STAFF: Jon Haukaas Ken Sampley FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Cache La Poudre River (Poudre) Floodplain Regulations EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A component of the Stormwater program review requested by City Council in October 2008 included a review of the level of regulation protecting life and property for areas within the Poudre River floodplain. The purpose of the work session will be to explain how the Adverse Impact Review(AIR) option differs from the current floodplain regulations and to discuss the viability of its implementation. Included will be information on increased life safety of City residents, the criteria that have been developed for evaluating whether a particular impact would be acceptable, and the floodplain submittal review process. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED Given the importance of the Poudre River to the City of Fort Collins and its citizens: I. Does Council feel that sufficient outreach and analysis has been provided to fully understand the criteria and process associated with the Adverse Impact Review option (Option 44 as redefined)? 2. Does Council desire specific revisions to the Adverse Impact Review option? 3. Does Council have sufficient information to make an informed decision regarding the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The over-riding purpose of floodplain regulations is to protect life-safety. Unfortunately, current practices in floodplain management allow new development and/or redevelopment to increase flood hazards on adjacent and impacted properties, including existing homes and businesses. The current Poudre River 100-year floodplain regulations allow property owners to create obstructions to flood flow. These obstructions redirect floodwaters onto existing neighbors and can place properties within the floodplain that previously were not in the floodplain. February 22, 2011 Page 2 Further development in the Poudre River 100-year floodplain results in increased risk to existing properties by increasing the flood elevation, changing the flow patterns, increasing velocities and generating debris. By allowing more development in areas prone to flooding, additional people and property, including emergency response personnel, are at risk. The only floodplain regulations being reviewed are for the Poudre River because: • The Poudre River is the largest watershed in the city, and has the potential to generate the highest flows, deepest depths and highest velocities during a flood event. • The Poudre Basin is different from other basins as it cannot be modified with engineering solutions. • The best way to prevent future flood losses on the Poudre River is through appropriate floodplain regulation consistent with industry best practices and community values. At the January 11, 2011 Council Work Session, staff presented four options of proposed floodplain regulations as listed below: Option#1: The Poudre River floodplain regulations be revised to adopt a 0.1 foot rise floodway. Option#2: The Poudre River floodplain regulations be revised to not allow any structures in the 100-year floodplain without a variance. Option#3: No change to the Poudre River floodplain regulations (null alternative). Option#4: Allow all non-residential development that meets the standards of No Adverse Impact A significant portion of the meeting focused on Option#4. Staff was directed to perform additional outreach regarding Option #4 and to bring the item for Council consideration and action at the February 15, 2011 Regular City Council meeting. On January 31, 2011, the Council Leadership Team provided new direction as outlined below: 1. Staff is to focus its efforts on Option# 4, however the option description needs revision. 2. Staff will develop for Council's consideration a system that allows for a case-by-case determination of whether the impact on other properties would be acceptable,versus a"one size fits all" numerical criterion, utilizing a hearing officer system whose discretion would be guided by criteria established in the regulations. 3. The option description should be better described along the following lines, "development will be permitted in the floodplain only if any adverse impacts of the development on downstream or upstream properties can be either entirely avoided or adequately mitigated according to established criteria." 4. An additional Council work session was scheduled for February 22, 2011. On February 16, 2011, the Council Leadership Team noted the adverse impact review option has the potential to be more flexible and balanced when compared to the current regulations and therefore recommended to Council that consideration of the adverse impact option be extended to develop the concept properly through an effective process that includes thorough public outreach, Council-staff interaction, and cost/benefit analysis. The purpose of the work session will be to explain how the Adverse Impact Review option differs from the current floodplain regulations, how it better protects the safety of City residents and to February 22, 2011 Page 3 discuss the implementation of the proposed option and, in particular, the criteria that have been developed for evaluating whether a particular impact would be acceptable Staff has performed additional public outreach and analysis, including the establishment of a Working Committee to discuss the viability of implementing Option #4 as redefined (Adverse Impact Review) and to develop appropriate criteria and a review process. Option #4—Adverse Impact Review (AIR) No adverse impact(NAI)is a philosophical approach to managing land use and a national trend and emerging best practice in the floodplain management arena. While current regulations focus on limitations to the property under development, NAI focuses on eliminating impacts to the surrounding properties. The goal of NAI is to prevent the worsening of flooding on existing homes, businesses and properties through responsible floodplain development. The basic NAI principle is that one property owner can not adversely impact the rights of other property owners. In recognition of the challenges in fully meeting the NAI standard and in compliance with direction from Council, staff has focused efforts on the establishment of a distinct approach that allows for a case-by-case determination of whether flooding and related impacts from new development and/or redevelopment on other properties can meet Adverse Impact Review (AIR) criteria. Under this guiding principle,non-residential development in the 100-year Poudre River floodplain would be pacts on downstream or upstream properties can be either entirely permitted only if the adverse im avoided or adequately mitigated, according to established criteria. Implementation of the AIR approach would require that new development and/or redevelopment evaluate all impacts and demonstrate, through engineering analyses certified by a Professional Engineer and Certified Floodplain Manager: • No significant increase in base flood elevation (BFE) • No increased life-safety or property damage potential for the new development and/or redevelopment during the 100-year flood • No significant adverse impacts on adjacent,upstream and downstream properties including; o No increase in flood velocities (within specified tolerances) o No increase in erosion or sedimentation (unless adequately mitigated) The challenge in applying this approach is to develop criteria that objectively evaluate these factors and also address non-quantifiable life safety considerations. The draft approach includes a multi- tiered process to address proposed development. The main component is to assess adverse impacts and to require appropriate mitigation in accordance with specified criteria and standards. Public Outreach and Feedback Staff was directed by Council to perform additional outreach regarding the Adverse Impact Review (redefined Option#4) approach. Staff met with the Local Legislative Affairs Committee (LLAC) of the Chamber of Commerce,the Water Board and the Downtown Development Authority(DDA) to present the option and to obtain feedback. In addition, staff established a working committee to provide an intensive and detailed review and discussion of the criteria and review process that would be used in the implementation of this option. The NAI Working Committee (as originally named) included members chosen to represent varying community values and interests. The Committee February 22, 2011 Page 4 (participants listed below) convened on three (3) separate occasions and meeting minutes are included as Attachment 1. Working Committee Participants Facilitator: Suzanne Jarboe-Simpson Working Committee: Rich Shannon Gary Wockner Mike Oberlander Andrea Faucett John Hunt Greg Koch Sean Dougherty Bob Gowing Dean Hoag Ken Sampley Brian Varrella Marsha Hilmes-Robinson Mike Bello Allen Ginsborg Brad Anderson Observers: Jon Haukaas Chris Lochra Jennifer Petrik Patty Bigner Melissa Katsimpalis Staff noted its commitment to delivering a workable Adverse Impact Review Option to Council within the given constraints. The Committee debated the criteria and review process and provided feedback that is incorporated into the proposed approach outlined in the following section. Key issues included: • Committee members had differing perspectives on several points. • Several Committee members stated that the need for change to the existing regulations has not clearly been defined—what is the driving force behind making these changes? • The developers and business representatives did not agree that the current regulations allowing a 6-inch rise in base flood elevation with activities in the flood fringe is a problem that warrants changing the existing regulations. • Concerns were expressed regarding the additional economic costs associated with preparing the adverse impact determination and additional time required to complete the review process. • The Working Committee highly recommended the use of a Hearing Panel review rather than just a single person Hearing Officer. • Several Committee members noted these are sweeping changes that require more definition of the problem and more vetting in the community. • The specified timeline by Council is too short for staff to properly evaluate the approach and develop appropriate criteria and a review process. • One Committee member suggested that the approach should be used on test cases of hypothetical developments in order to review the process and identify implementation issues. • One Committee member thought smaller properties would find it difficult to comply with the no significant adverse impact requirement and would therefore be prohibited from redevelopment. • Some Committee members expressed frustration and concern that implementing a no significant adverse impact regulation will prohibit their ability to redevelop their property. • Some Committee members expressed concern about unintended consequences of revising the floodplain regulations. 11 February 22, 2011 Page 5 Staff indicated that making the criteria more prescriptive (i.e., definitive) would reduce the flexibility that is a major advantage of an Adverse Impact Review approach. The criteria, as currently identified, will allow flexibility-but the process will still require considerable judgment. A more prescriptive set of criteria might eliminate the need for a review process to weigh the benefits and adverse impacts. CRITERIA AND STANDARDS The following criteria and standards represent staff s approach to implementing an Adverse Impact Review regulation for the Poudre River floodplain. The criteria and standards incorporate input and feedback from the NAI Working Committee,boards and citizen groups. The standards are divided into two categories: 1. Floodplain development submittals that meet prescriptive criteria and do not have a potential adverse impact on other properties (i.e., remodels, landscaping that does not involve fill, breakaway fences). These submittals are listed in the green highlighted column in Attachment 2. Criteria for these submittals is defined in Chapter 10 of City Code. 2. Floodplain development submittals that require an Adverse Impact Review (AIR). This review is designed to assess adverse impacts and to require appropriate mitigation in accordance with specified criteria and standards. These submittals are listed in the purple highlighted column in Attachment 2. The Adverse Impact Review can be addressed through either an Administration Determination or an Adverse Impact Review Hearing Determination. The criteria and standards for both processes are outlined in the draft ordinance (Attachment 3) and summarized below. Adverse Impact Review Hearing Determination Standards. In order for a proposed development to be eligible for a floodplain use permit, each of the following standards must be met, considering any preventive or mitigation measures included as part of the development and any related additional requirements or conditions imposed by the decision maker: a. Human life and safety. The proposed development must not result in a net increase in risk to human life and safety, considering the overall and net effect of the development proposed: . i. Dryland access must be retained or provided. ii. Emergency warning and evacuation plans must be prepared if the development results in new or additional persons occupying or present in the floodplain. b. Any structure or addition must be designed to withstand flood forces and the force of flood-driven debris, and to not generate debris. C. Flood damage-resistant materials are required below the regulatory flood elevation. d. Any structure or addition must be elevated or floodproofed. e. The proposed development must not result in an increase in base flood elevation on any existing structure. If the proposed development would result in an increase in base flood elevation on any off-site location (where no structures are affected), the February 22, 2011 Page 6 applicant must obtain formal consent in the form of an easement or other recorded documents sufficient to obligate all affected persons with respect to the adverse impacts. f. If the proposed development would result in an increase in flood velocities on any off-site location,the applicant must obtain formal consent in the form of an easement or other recorded documents to obligate all affected persons with respect to the adverse impacts. g. Changes to a floodway boundary require formal consent in the form of an easement or other recorded documents to obligate all affected persons with respect to the adverse impacts. h. The proposed development must be located and designed so as to prevent damage from foreseeable natural erosion of the channel bed and banks. i. Increases in erosion potential on-site or a decrease in channel stability on-site requires mitigation adequate to prevent damage from such conditions. j. Off-site increases in erosion potential or a decrease in channel stability requires mitigation adequate to prevent damage from such conditions and to prevent aggravation or migration of such conditions. k. The proposed development must not result in floatable materials that are prohibited and must not increase the potential for materials that are not within the definition of floatable materials but that could generate debris or become debris. I. The proposed development must be located and designed so as to prevent damage from flood flows that could result from blockages and damming that is reasonably foreseeable from vehicles, equipment, trees, or other items or materials that would be carried by flood flows. in. The proposed development must be consistent with Stormwater Master Plan documents. The review hearing provides an opportunity for potentially-impacted property owners and citizens to voice concerns on flood-related issues. The review also allows for site-specific mitigation measures to be considered. Adverse Impact Review Administrative Determination The same standards and criteria for the Adverse Impact Review Hearing Determination above apply with the following exceptions: a. Human life and safety. The proposed development must not result in new or additional persons occupying or present in the floodplain. b. The proposed development must not result in an increase in base flood elevation on any off-site location or on any existing structure. C. The proposed development must not result in an increase in flood velocities on any off-site location. d. The proposed development must not result in any change to a floodway boundary. The Administrative Review provides a streamlined process for those submittals that do not have off- site adverse impacts or additional life-safety risks to proceed without a review hearing. February 22, 2011 Page 7 REVIEW PROCESS The review process for development and/or redevelopment submittals within the Poudre River 100- year floodplain will depend on the nature of the submittal. Attachment 2 provides a tabular listing of submittals and the corresponding review process. Adverse Impact Reviews can be done through either an Administrative Determination or an Adverse Impact Review Hearing Determination depending on the submittal. A flowchart outlining the Poudre River Floodplain Review Process is included as Attachment 4. The new portion of review process associated with the Adverse Impact Review is shown on the right side of the flowchart in the light blue highlighted box. It should be noted that the Hearing Officer/Panel review process initially proposed has been'modified to include a Technical Advisory Panel as outlined in the draft Adverse Impact Review Ordinance (Attachment 3). The AIR process works in conjunction with the existing review process for processing of Conditional Letters of Map Revision (CLOMRs) and Letters of Map Revision (LOMRs), issuing of a floodplain use permit and any required as-built certifications. Variance and appeal processes are also included. ATTACHMENTS 1. NAI Working Committee Meeting Minutes (01/26/11, 01/31/11, 02/07/11) 2. Poudre River Floodplain Regulation Review Categories 3. Draft Adverse Impact Review Ordinance 4. Poudre River Floodplain Regulation Review Process Flowchart 5. Powerpoint presentation Attachment 1 NAI WORKING COMMITTEE JANUARY 26, 2011 5:00 — 7:00 PM Fort Collins Utilities Service Center 700 Wood Street(Training Room) Fort Collins,Colorado AGENDA I. Introductions/Ground Rules (10 Min) Suzanne Jarboe-Simpson II. Recognize/Acknowledge Values and Interests (5 Min) Suzanne Jarboe-Simpson III. Brief Background (5 Min) Ken Sampley i. Purpose of Review ii. Council Direction iii. Public Outreach IV. NAI Concept and Approach (5 Min) Ken Sampley V. NAI Examples (10 Min) Brian Varella VI. NAI Criteria —2 Sessions (40 Min) Suzanne Jarboe-Simpson i. Technical Focus (Engineering, Modeling, etc.) ii. General/Community Focus (Safety, Development, Environmental) iii. Summary Report from Each Session VII. Review Process (30 Min) Suzanne Jarboe-Simpson i. Administrative Marsha Hilmes-Robinson ii. Hearing Officer Vill. Summary (10 Min) Suzanne Jarboe-Simpson i. Verbal Summary ii. Meeting Notes and Distribution IX. Next Meeting (5 Min) Ken Sampley January 31, 2011 5:30—7:30 PM Tentative Agenda X. Adjourn MEETING PARTICIPANTS Facilitator: Suzanne Jarboe-Simpson Working Committee: • Rich Shannon Gary Wockner Mike Oberlander • Andrea Faucett John Hunt Greg Koch • Sean Dougherty Bob Gowing Gina Janett • Ken Sampley Brian Varella Marsha Hilmes-Robinson Observers: • Chris Lochra Jennifer Petrik Patty Bigner • Melissa Katsimpalis I 1of19 NAI WORKING COMMITTEE JANUARY 26, 2011 5:00 —7:00 PM Fort Collins Utilities Service Center 700 Wood Street(Training Room) Fort Collins,Colorado MEETING SUMMARY I. Introductions/Ground Rules Suzanne provided background on the format for the committee meeting. Attendees introduced themselves and provided a brief description of their interest in the process. II. Recognize/Acknowledge Values and Interests Suzanne reviewed the initial list of values and interests associated with the Poudre River and potential revisions to its floodplain regulations. Additional values and interests were added to this list by committee members. The list consisted of: Life safety Project Implementation Property Damage Poudre River as an asset Property Value Riparian Habitat Business Expansion/Addition River Function Sale of Property/Development Taxpayer Expense Economic Growth Recreation Tax Base for City Develop and Maintain Infrastructure III. Brief Background Staff provided a brief summary of the purpose of the floodplain review, a summary of public outreach and council's direction to evaluate the NAI option and approach. It was noted that Council's direction to the Working Committee is to determine if the NAI option can be implemented and to develop criteria for this approach. IV. NAI concept and Approach The concept and approach was reviewed using materials presented at the January 11 Council Work Session. One member asked if this approach will be extrapolated and used for the other drainage basins in the City. Staff noted that the proposed regulations are only for the Poudre River. V. NAI Examples Staff provided an NAI illustration using materials presented at the Council Work Session. The example consisted of a fill project that intercepts both the floodplain and floodway with construction of a conveyance channel to remove land from the floodplain. It was noted that this approach can be used now with the regulations that are in place. Other NAI examples included Conveyance Shadowing and Ineffective flow area. The Ineffective flow area example focused on a bridge crossing (contraction and expansion of the flow). It was noted that the City of Nashville, TN passed an NAI Ordinance in December 2009. 2of19 NAI WORKING COMMITTEE JANUARY 26, 2011 5:00— 7:00 PM Fort Collins Utilities Service Center 700 Wood Street(Training Room) Fort Collins,Colorado Nashville is currently in the process of identifying and determining the criteria and requirements necessary to implement the ordinance. It was noted that the State of Colorado Water Conservation Board adopted floodplain requirements in November 2009 that match the City's 0.5 foot rise floodway requirement. Staff noted that outreach efforts continue with upcoming presentations scheduled for the DDA, Advanced Planning, Water Board, Chamber of Commerce, URA CAG, and City Council. The NAI Working Committee is a key part of this outreach effort. VI. NAI Criteria Rather than split into two concurrent sessions, the Committee decided to work as one large group and work on Non-Technical and Technical Criteria in sequence. Non-Technical Criteria Discussion The Committee discussed and debated key considerations. Topics and perspectives included: • One Committee member stated that broad sweeping regulations should be associated with broad sweeping risk. There are four main impacted reaches. How many people would be impacted in these four reaches? Do the regulations exceed the risk? • It was noted that elevating buildings would reduce their potential for flooding damage, however it does not address the safety of people who access these buildings if the adjacent roads, parking lots and ground is under water and subject to flooding. • If redevelopment is not allowed, then existing buildings in the floodplain will continue to be subject to flooding. Redevelopment would result in elevated buildings that are safer. • Why should property owners that do not want to redevelop be subjected to increased flood risk associated with the construction of new development? • When is increased flood depth a significant increase in risk or damage? Is it 6"? Is it 2 more inches when the property is already 3 feet under water? • Need to focus on specific, real life situations— not conceptual solutions. • Discussions on what should be the City's primary goals. Is redevelopment of College and Vine a higher priority than other values? How are competing values balanced? • Is the NAI approach too restrictive? There is no way to have "no" adverse impact. What is an appropriate level of impact? • Discuss the unique nature of flooding impacts (i.e. larger population impacted) as compared to traffic/transportation, etc. 3of19 NAI WORKING COMMITTEE JANUARY 26, 2011 5:00 —7:00 PM Fort Collins Utilities Service Center 700 Wood Street(Training Room) Fort Collins,Colorado Technical Criteria Discussion The Committee spent the majority of meeting time on this issue. Topics and perspectives included: • Staff presented a preliminary list of considerations taken from City Code to review and consider while creating the appropriate criteria • Potential factors around which criteria could be established include: o Base Flood Elevation o Veloc ity o Shear Stress (Erosion and Sedimentation) • Should adverse impacts be able to be offset by other benefits? • Criteria is needed to establish consistency in developments, engineering submittals, and review of projects • It is not practical or realistic to have "no" adverse impact. What is an appropriate level of impact? The Committee struggled with how to quantify that level. • Perhaps a range or set of parameters would be an appropriate approach. • Concern expressed that small, individual parcels may not be able to implement feasible or cost effective approaches to mitigate adverse impacts • Numerous engineers expressed concerns with the difficulty of meeting a 0.00 increase in velocity or other factors • Recently-adopted (Nov. 2009) CWCB Floodplain Regulations criteria were reviewed and discussed. • Concern expressed by many Committee members that there is insufficient time available to develop a well-thought out set of criteria and review procedures VII. Review Process There was not time left for the Committee to discuss the floodplain regulation review process. Staff provided hard copies of the NAI Flowchart and conceptual review process criteria to members (same info as included in the email meeting invitation). Committee members were asked to review the documents in advance of the next Committee Meeting. Members were asked to submit comments via email to City Staff. Vill. Summary Concern was again expressed by many Committee members that there was not enough time to fully consider the NAI approach and develop criteria for its implementation. Staff reminded the Committee of Council's direction and noted that there is another Committee meeting next week to continue review and discussions. Staff will provide Council with the best analysis of the NAI option possible within the given constraints. IX. Next Meeting The 2" meeting of the NAI Working Committee is scheduled for January 31, 2011 (Monday) from 5:30 — 7:30 PM at the same location —700 Wood Street, Training Room. 4of19 NAI WORKING COMMITTEE JANUARY 26, 2011 5:00 — 7:00 PM Fort Collins Utilities Service Center 700 Wood Street(Training Room) Fort Collins, Colorado MEETING FLIP CHART NOTES Comments/Concerns We're talking specifically about the Poudre River right now— but, will the NAI framework and components be applied to other rivers and creeks in Fort Collins? NAI addresses the safety of and/or impacts on structures. Does it also address occupants, workers, etc? If there's flooding and damage occurs to or is caused by existing structures, is that more acceptable than damage to or caused by new structures that are built on the same property? (This becomes an issue if a property owner is not allowed to re-develop his/her property). Looking at the issue from the practical side— is it possible to get actual data for the 4 study reaches on the river (not including the Link N Green property)and talk specifically about the impacts on these areas? It's important to talk about the degree and risk for specific locations, not just in the hypothetical sense. Are there safety concerns if we elevate structures to comply with the requirements? Velocity depth — is there modeling data available for comparisons? Are we willing to tell some property owners that they're not able to do something/anything with their property because of its location? NAI looks like we're extending the floodplain to the floodway— is this true? NAI criteria seem to be too strong. What's the need? It feels like we're not allowing for balance. A procedural question—what did or does the Natural Resources Dept say when someone wants to dig a channel —are they complying with the current storm water requirements? Can a property owner make a change to his/her property that negatively impacts another property owner? Can property owners ban together and create situations where one property benefits but another suffers? Can easements be acquired or granted? Why do we need to look at any requirements stronger than FEMA? 5 of 19 POUDRE RIVER FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS NAI WORKING COMMITTEE JANUARY 26, 2011 5:00— 7:00 PM Fort Collins Utilities Service Center 700 Wood Street(Training Room) Fort Collins, Colorado Can we alter the statement to something less stringent? Maybe something like "no substantial adverse impact'? Are we compelled to adopt 0.00? Can we set book ends to 0.00—0.5? As a group, do we prefer 0.1 or 0.05 rather than 0.00? It will be important to reduce the subjectivity so the developer knows what may be a reasonable option and so the reviews can be consistent. 6of19 NAI WORKING COMMITTEE JANUARY 31, 2011 5:30 —7:30 PM Fort Collins Utilities Service Center 700 Wood Street(Training Room) Fort Collins, Colorado AGENDA I. Introductions/Ground Rules (10 Min) Suzanne Jarboe-Simpson Il. Recognize/Acknowledge Values and Interests (5 Min) Suzanne Jarboe-Simpson III. Brief Background and NAI Concept/Approach (5 Min) Ken Sampley i. Purpose of Review ii. Council Direction, Leadership Team Clarification iii. Council Schedule Adjustment iv. NAI Concept and Approach v. Public Outreach IV. Review Progress from January 26, NAI Meeting (10 Min) i. General/Community Focus -- Safety, Development, Environmental ii. Technical Focus -- Engineering, Modeling, etc. V. Review Process (30 Min) Marsha Hilmes-Robinson i. Administrative ii. Hearing Officer VI. Process Check (10 Min) Suzanne Jarboe-Simpson i. What do you like? Dislike? ii. Fatal Flaws? iii. Being responsive to Council? VII. NAI Criteria—Continuation from Jan. 261h (15 Min) Ken Sampley i. Technical ii. General/Community VIII. Discuss Committee Feedback to Council (20 Min) Suzanne Jarboe-Simpson Ken Sampley IX. Next Meeting (5 Min) Ken Sampley February 7, 2011 5:30—7:30 PM Tentative Agenda X. Adjourn 7of19 NAI WORKING COMMITTEE JANUARY 31, 2011 5:30 — 7:30 PM Fort Collins Utilities Service Center 700 Wood Street(Training Room) Fort Collins,Colorado MEETING PARTICIPANTS Facilitator: Suzanne Jarboe-Simpson Working Committee: • Rich Shannon Gary Wockner Mike Oberlander Andrea Faucett John Hunt Greg Koch • Sean Dougherty Bob Gowing Dean Hoag • Ken Sampley Brian Varrella Marsha Hilmes-Robinson • Mike Bello Allen Ginsborg Brad Anderson Observers: • Jon Haukaas Chris Lochra Jennifer Petrik MEETING SUMMARY I. Introductions/Ground Rules Suzanne reminded attendees of the format for the meeting, and that the purpose of the meeting is to discuss the viability of implementing Option #4 (No Significant Adverse Impact) and to develop appropriate criteria. Attendees introduced themselves and provided a brief description of their interest in the process. II. Recognize/Acknowledge Values and Interests Suzanne reviewed the list of values and interests associated with the Poudre River and potential revisions to its floodplain regulations. Additional values and interests were added to this list by committee members. The list consisted of: Life safety Project Implementation Property Damage Poudre River as an asset Property Value Riparian Habitat Business Expansion/Addition River Function Sale of Property/Development Taxpayer Expense Economic Growth Recreation Tax Base for City Develop and Maintain Infrastructure Employment/New Jobs Undermining Impacts of Development Plans for N College III. Brief Background and NAI Concept/Approach Staff provided clarification that none of the Options under consideration by Council, including Option #4, would affect existing and proposed development in the Dry Creek floodplain. 8of1s NAI WORKING COMMITTEE JANUARY 31, 2011 5:30 — 7:30 PM Fort Collins Utilities Service Center 700 Wood Street(Training Room) Fort Collins,Colorado Staff noted that the Council Leadership Team provided additional direction to: 1. Focus efforts on Option #4—with the clarification that the option would better be described by "development will be permitted in the floodplain only if any adverse impacts of the development on downstream or upstream properties can be either entirely avoided or adequately mitigated according to established criteria." 2. Develop for Council's consideration a system that allows for a case-by-case determination of whether the impact on other properties would be acceptable, versus a "one size fits all" numerical criterion, utilizing a hearing officer system whose discretion would be guided by criteria established in the regulations. 3. Revised the Council schedule by adding a Council Work Session on February 22, 2011 to discuss how this option differs from the current floodplain regulations and in particular the criteria that have been developed. First reading of an ordinance considering adoption of revised Poudre River Floodplain regulations will occur on March 1, 2011 followed by second reading on March 15, 2011. Many of the Committee members noted the March15, 2011 Council meeting conflicts with Spring Break and felt this item was of such importance to the community that the schedule should be revised so interested parties could attend. / IV. Review Progress from January 26, NAI Meeting Staff noted that several comments from Committee members had been received via e- mail and that those would be discussed during the meeting in conjunction with the respective topic. Staff reviewed the input received at the January 26 meeting on general and technical criteria. The criteria will again be a major focus for this meeting. V. Review Process A preliminary review process (handouts provided) was developed by Staff. The committee felt that a (third) separate meeting Was needed to focus solely on process, and that tonight's meeting should focus on criteria. There was discussion on the difference between an administrative review versus the need for a hearing officer, and that the former approach would be sufficient for smaller projects, limited remodels, interior remodels, small landscaping projects, fences, etc. The hearing officer process would be needed for projects that require a determination as to whether there are significant adverse impacts or if those have been adequately mitigated. VI. Process Check The Committee noted its desire to spend the majority of its meeting time discussing the criteria for Option #4. C 9of19 NAI WORKING COMMITTEE JANUARY 31, 2011 5:30 — 7:30 PM Fort Collins Utilities Service Center 700 Wood Street(Training Room) Fort Collins,Colorado VII. NAI Criteria Staff initiated the criteria discussion by presenting an existing definition of NAI from the Endangered Species Act language used by FEMA in Region 10 (from Washington State). The committee discussed what represents an adverse result, based on cases where some beneficial impacts may have the potential to offset adverse impacts. The definition provided implies any adverse impacts are unacceptable. Staff reminded the committee that several options exist for impacts to be mitigated. Staff was tasked with refining the definition. The Committee debated what types of benefits could be considered by a hearing officer. Staff indicated many adverse impacts can be mitigated under this approach. Some Committee members expressed concern that the burden of proving impacts are not adverse will fall too heavily on the development community. Technical Criteria Discussion The Committee discussed and debated key considerations. Topics and perspectives included: • One Committee member stated that the reach of the Poudre River just downstream of College Avenue should be used to discuss the pros and cons of the no significant adverse impact criteria. • Two members noted their opposition to Option #4 and questioned why the existing regulations are not adequate. • There was extensive discussion concerning the nature of flooding on already flooded structures (i.e. if a structure is already subjected to a 2 foot flooding depth in the 100 year flood —what is the impact of an additional 2" of water depth). Is the additional depth really an adverse impact? o One perspective asked why it is fair to subject properties that do not want to redevelop to additional flooding depths and impacts without obtaining their informed consent. o One Committee member/floodplain property owner expressed willingness to receive water from others based on the property already being subject to a high flooding depth. o The Committee was reminded that easements can be pursued /granted with willing property owners -- provided life/safety issues accounted for. o One committee member felt that redirecting floodwater onto properties that are not currently subject to flooding should be prohibited, however raising water elevations on structures already subjected to flooding should be allowed. o One committee member stated that the shift from the 6" rise floodway currently permitted to no adverse impact is too great a shift. 10 of 19 NAI WORKING COMMITTEE JANUARY 31, 2011 5:30— 7:30 PM Fort Collins Utilities Service Center 700 Wood Street(Training Room) Fort Collins, Colorado • Staff noted 4 solutions exist under no significant adverse impact to mitigate impacts from development: o use of ineffective flow areas (areas impounded by flood waters but exhibiting little or no downstream velocities and not behaving as appreciable floodwater storage) o conveyance shadowing (location of new improvements behind/in front of existing structures that already block flood flows) o construction of a conveyance channel to offset a rise in base flood elevation caused by development o Acquisition of easements from impacted properties to allow floodwater. o It was noted that 3 of these solutions could be directly applied to the reach of the Poudre River just downstream of College Avenue. • Staff asserted that the engineering criteria should probably be held to no/slight rise and no increases in velocity (to remain in line with State CWCB regulations). The CWCB regulations do not indicate whether the velocity requirement relates to an overall average or at specific locations. • It was pointed out that specification of acceptable rounding (the floodway to 0.00 ft and floodplain to 0.0 ft would accomplish two goals — not treat the floodplain the same as the floodway, and to permit some flexibility for design during modeling. • Several members believed some type of decision matrix that would allow for the weighing of benefits and detriments would be of use to a hearing officer. • Several committee members expressed respect for the current concept of allowable rise in the floodway, since allowance is made for cumulative effects of development. There was support expressed by one member for a more rigorous floodway allowable rise (revert to 0.1 ft). • One member felt the criteria should be specifically outlined in code and then a hearing officer would likely not be needed. Administrative (non-modeling) Criteria Discussion • Staff provide a handout with draft-suggestions and requested input. Staff indicated the life/safety issue could be evaluated on a case by case basis. • Ideas included a proportional damage evaluation for allowable rise (to allow for structures that are already flooded and those previously dry). Vill. Summary As the meeting concluded due to time, several Committee members reasserted that this timeline is too short, and is not realistic. The sentiment was expressed that if the political process is short circuited, the credibility of the regulations will be questioned. One committee member stated that if the proposed approach is not adequately outlined and its impacts understood —then the approach should not be presented as viable to 11 of 19 POUDRE RIVER FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS NAI WORKING COMMITTEE JANUARY 31, 2011 5:30 —7:30 PM Fort Collins Utilities Service Center 700 Wood Street(Training Room) Fort Collins,Colorado City Council. Staff indicated its commitment to delivering a workable-approach to Council. Staff will provide Council with the best analysis of the NAI option possible within the given constraints. IX. Next Meeting The 3rd meeting of the NAI Working Committee is scheduled for February 7,2011 (Monday) from 5:30 — 7:30 PM at the same location —700 Wood Street, Training Room. X. Adjourn 12 of 19 NAI WORKING COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 7, 2011 5:30—7:30 PM Fort Collins Utilities Service Center 700 Wood Street(Training Room) Fort Collins,Colorado AGENDA I. Introductions/Ground Rules (5 Min) Suzanne Jarboe-Simpson II. Recognize/Acknowledge Values and Interests (5 Min) Suzanne Jarboe-Simpson III. Brief Background and NAI Concept/Approach (5 Min) Ken Sampley i. Purpose of Review ii. Council Direction IV. Review Progress from January 31, NAI Committee Meeting (10 Min) i. Criteria ii. Review Process V. NAI Criteria — Review and Finalize (30 Min) Ken Sampley i. Technical ii. General/Community iii. Summarize VI. Review Process (45 Min) Marsha Hilmes-Robinson i. Administrative ii. Hearing Officer VII. Process Check (10 Min) Suzanne Jarboe-Simpson i. What do you like? Dislike? Fatal flaws? ii. Responsive to Council Direction? VIII. City Council (10 Min) Ken Sampley i. Review Council Schedule ii. Summarize 1. Criteria 2. Review Process IX. Adjourn MEETING PARTICIPANTS Facilitator: Suzanne Jarboe-Simpson Working Committee: • Rich Shannon Gary Wockner Mike Oberlander • Allen Ginsborg John Hunt Greg Koch • Sean Dougherty Bob Gowing Dean Hoag • Ken Sampley Brian Varrella Marsha Hilmes-Robinson • Mike Bello Observers: • Jon Haukaas Chris Lochra Jennifer Petrik 13 of 19 NAI WORKING COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 7, 2011 5:30—7:30 PM Fort Collins Utilities Service Center 700 Wood Street(Training Room) Fort Collins,Colorado I. Introductions/Ground Rules (5 Min) Suzanne reminded attendees that the purpose of the meeting is to discuss the viability of implementing Option #4 (No Significant Adverse Impact) and to develop appropriate criteria. Staff is committed to delivering a workable approach to Council. Staff will provide Council with the best analysis of the NAI option possible within the given constraints. Attendees introduced themselves and provided a brief description of their interest in the process. ll. Recognize/Acknowledge Values and Interests Suzanne restated the values and interests that were generated in previous meetings. One Committee member restated his concern that the problem with the current floodplain regulations has not been adequately identified and the timeframe is too short for Staff and the group to develop a no significant adverse impact approach that is well thought out and has widespread community support. III. Brief Background and NAI Concept/Approach Staff reiterated the direction received from the Council Leadership Team. Option #4 is better explained by terminology as Adverse Impact Determination, No Significant Adverse Impact instead of NAI. Option #4 will be presented at the February 22, 2011 Council Work Session. Council consideration of potential revisions to the Poudre River Floodplain regulations is currently scheduled for the March 1, 2011 Regular Council Meeting. Staff will have one day to incorporate Council direction from the work session into the March 1 Council Item AIS. IV. Review Progress from January 31, NAI Committee Meeting Staff summarized input received from Committee Members since the January 31, 2011 Committee meeting. This included technical considerations on acceptable tolerances for velocity and base flood elevation rises. Comments were also received questioning why the regulations prohibit residential development in the 100-year floodplain when other City goals encourage mixed-use (i.e. live, work, and play in one place). It was suggested that Committee consensus existed to prohibit development that expands the floodplain onto previously un-impacted properties. Two committee members expressed support for the proposed BFE and velocity criteria and tolerances. Once committee member challenged the assertion that there are certain trade offs that can't be made. For example, if a proposal significantly improves safety, but there is an insignificant flood elevation rise on some property that trade off shouldn't automatically be discounted. V. NAI Criteria — Review and Finalize 14 of 19 NAI WORKING COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 7, 2011 5:30—7:30 PM Fort Collins Utilities Service Center 700 Wood Street(Training Room) Fort Collins,Colorado General Discussion — Floodplain Modeling The Committee discussed the technical considerations associated with modeling of the Poudre River Floodplain -- differences between steady and unsteady hydraulic models. The current effective Poudre River floodplain is based on a steady-state model that removes time-variable behaviors so floodwater storage is not accounted for. Staff and engineering committee members explained again the considerations associated with the delineation of floodways and floodplains. Several committee members still questioned if the model appropriate reflects the real world scenario of phased development over time in the flood fringe. It was explained that the floodway concept was initially created to prevent development from occurring in the highest risk areas while providing the opportunity to develop land in the flood fringe that does not increase flood elevations above prescribed limits (currently a 6" rise in Fort Collins). Some committee members expressed concern that these concepts were difficult to fully understand —even for those who work in this discipline. It was agreed that the current steady-state model has limitations, but it was developed using FEMA's best practice guidelines and the no significant adverse impact approach must be developed with that in mind. General Discussion —Values. Interests, Cost One Committee member noted that it is the uncertainty of the no significant adverse impact approach that creates problems for developers and property owners attempting to plan for and quantify the cost of compliance. The current regulations are well understood and can be accounted for. The new approach would dramatically impact the ability and rights of property owners to develop their respective properties. It was noted that Option 2 prohibits structural development in the 100-year floodplain. What many did not understand was that a variance process currently exists that could result in buildings being constructed in the floodplain if life safety considerations could be adequately addressed. Concern was expressed by several committee members that Option 4 will be very expensive and that the expense and viability of the approach will prevent many properties from being able to develop. This could result in continued blighted areas. The Committee was reminded of the list of values and interests. The approach needs to appropriately consider and balance the values and interests. Focusing on cost as the primary value does not allow for this balance. Staff noted its primary value was protection of life safety. Adverse Impact Determination Criteria 15 of 19 NAI WORKING COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 7, 2011 5:30 — 7:30 PM Fort Collins Utilities Service Center 700 Wood Street(Training Room) Fort Collins,Colorado Staff provided and presented a handout that listed draft criteria (see attached handout). The Committee discussed issues with rounding (base flood elevation and velocities) and whether the tolerances specified provide any real opportunities for developments to demonstrate a no significant adverse impact. Staff noted that the 0.00 feet rise criteria in the floodway is required by FEMA. A 0.0 feet rise criteria in the flood fringe provides the opportunity to increase BFE's by up to 0.049 feet. Staff presented each of the criteria for committee review and comment. One engineering Committee Member noted that this does provide some flexibility to account for modeling constraints and other real world situations. Staff noted the challenge in defining criteria for incorporation into the City Code. Criteria discussed included: o Base Flood Elevation Rise o Cross Section Average Flow Velocity Rise o Use, Occupancy and Emergency Services ■ Number of new people in the floodplain ■ Dryland access • Structural design of buildings ■ Emergency plans and signage • Fooatable material anchoring ■ Easements The Committee discussed no increase in cross section average flow velocity unless an easement has been obtained. This is consistent with new State floodplain regulations. Appropriate erosion control or sediment removal techniques shall be incorporated, and can be used to mitigate increased localized velocities. All development shall provide emergency plans, dry land access, all floatable materials shall be tethered to prevent offsite floatation. Can the structures withstand the forces of floating trees, dumpsters, vehicles and other debris? Would the building be a debris generator depending on the construction materials? Concern was again expressed by some committee members that these considerations will require more subjective evaluation and judgment and it will be difficult for developers/property owners to plan for this process. Concern was also expressed that the BFE and Velocity criteria are too strict—they might was well be set to absolutes (no increase). Engineering members of the committee did note that the tolerances specified provide some flexibility. Several Committee members continued to struggle with the concept that small rises (i.e. inches) onto other structures/properties already subjected to 2 or 3 feet of floodwater depth is an adverse impact. There was recognition that flooding a structure not previously subject to flooding is an adverse impact. 16 of 19 NAI WORKING COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 7, 2011 5:30 —7:30 PM Fort Collins Utilities Service Center 700 Wood Street(Training Room) Fort Collins,Colorado VI. Review Process Staff provided and then presented a handout containing the draft review process flow chart. If a project can meet specific no significant adverse impact criteria and can demonstrate no additional people will be located within the 100-year floodplain, it is possible for the project to be reviewed administratively. Administrative review also includes the items listed in the Poudre River Proposed NAI Regulations handout (blue, orange and yellow headings). It was noted that the only new part of the process was shown on the right hand branch of the flowchart. Staff noted that projects that revise the floodplain boundaries would still need to go through the CLOMR/LOMR process. It was noted that staff currently reviews CLOMRs/LOMRs within a 10 work day timeframe. The adverse impact determination process will add time to the process in advance of the CLOMR/LOMR. Staff noted the review process includes feedback from planning/zoning/LUC. Staff will review the submittal to ensure it is a complete application before proceeding to the hearing panel phase. One Committee member questioned where in the process public input would be incorporated (i.e. Save the Poudre and other organizations). How will the values and interests of river function, riparian habitat, etc. be analyzed and addressed? Staff noted that the floodplain regulation process will be focused on floodplain-related health, safety and welfare matters. Other existing development review processes would be the place for public input on those items. In general, the Committee supported the use of a hearing panel as compared to a hearing officer. These submittals will be complex, and it would be appropriate to have several technical experts review the information to obtain the best review and judgment. The panel members should be technically qualified. Requiring Professional Engineer (PE) and Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM) licenses isn't enough —the panel members should have considerable demonstrated floodplain experience. Staff noted that possible use of the Larimer County Floodplain Review Board through an IGA has been considered. One Committee member noted it would be good to have a structural engineer included on the panel. Committee members indicated that if the regulations are more restrictive, it could have unintended consequences (i.e. having parking lots line the Poudre River). Staff noted the process of considering new regulations started with a Triple Bottom Line (TBL) analysis of all potential consequences — however life safety is a primary consideration for Floodplain Administration staff. Floodplain regulations are by nature based on the concepts of TBL with a primary focus on the social considerations of public safety. Environmental and economic considerations are secondary to public safety. 17 of 19 NAI WORKING COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 7, 2011 5:30 — 7:30 PM Fort Collins Utilities Service Center 700 Wood Street(Training Room) Fort Collins,Colorado VII. Process Check Staff noted its commitment to delivering a workable Option 4 to Council. Staff will provide Council with the best analysis of the NAI option possible within the given constraints. Committee members asked how Staff will report on the results of the NAI Working Committee. Staff indicated the following would be noted: o Committee members had differing perspectives on several points. o The developers and business representatives did not agree that the current regulations allowing a 6" rise in base flood elevation with activities in the flood fringe is a problem that warrants changing the existing regulations. o Concerns were expressed regarding the additional economic costs associated with preparing the adverse impact determination and additional time required to complete the review process o The Working Committee highly recommended the use of a Hearing Panel review rather than just a single person Hearing Officer. - o Several Committee members noted these are sweeping changes that require more definition of the problem and more vetting in the community. o Several Committee members stated that the need for change to the existing regulations has not clearly been defined —what is the driving force behind making these changes? o The specified timeline by Council is too short for staff to properly evaluate the approach and develop appropriate criteria and a review process. o One Committee member suggested that the approach should be used on test cases of hypothetical developments in order to review the process and identify implementation issues. o It appears that smaller properties would find it extremely difficult to comply with the no significant adverse impact requirement, and would therefore be prohibited from redevelopment. o Some Committee members expressed frustration and concern that implementing a no significant adverse impact regulation will prohibit their ability to redevelop their property. Staff indicated that making the criteria more prescriptive (i.e. fleshed out)would reduce the flexibility that is a major advantage of a No Significant Adverse Impact regulation. The criteria as currently identified will allow some flexibility, but the process will require considerable judgment by the Hearing Officer/Panel to meet the purpose and intent of the rule. A more prescriptive set of criteria becomes just a stricter regulation and may eliminate the need for a Hearing Officer/Panel to weigh the benefits/detrimental impacts. Staff also noted that if Council chooses to pursue this approach, additional time is needed to implement the Hearing Officer/Panel process and to develop an appropriate fee structure for the review process. 18 of 19 POUDRE RIVER FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS NAI WORKING COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 7, 2011 5:30 — 7:30 PM Fort Collins Utilities Service Center 700 Wood Street(Training Room) Fort Collins,Colorado Vill. City Council Staff reiterated the schedule of upcoming Council Work Session and Meetings. The completed Council item will be available for review on the City's website on Thursday, February 17-2011. IX. Adjourn 19 of 19 ATTACHMENT 2 Poudre River Proposed Regulations Review Process Depending on Type of Development Adverse Impact Review Basic Review Administrative Review or Hearing New Non-Residential structures in flood Remodels fringe Non-Residential Additions in flood fringe Substantial Improvements — no increase in footprint Non-Residential Redevelopment in flood Fencing designed to be break-away or fringe . allow passage of water through a flap or opening. Detention ponds that do involve fill and are Detention ponds that do not involve fill and not entirely within the floodway or flood are entirely within the floodway or flood fringe (i .e. would not change the floodplain fringe (i. e . would not change the floodplain lines) lines Hard surface paths, trails and walkways Hard surface paths, trails and walkways that involve fill and change the floodway or that do not involve fill and do not change floodplain lines . the floodway or floodplain lines . Reconstruction of substantially damaged Reconstruction of substantially damaged structure due to flooding in flood fringe structure due to cause other than flooding in flood fringe Break-away pedestrian bridges involving Break-away pedestrian bridges involving fill (including abutments, etc . no fill (including abutments) . Landscaping that involves fill or would Landscaping that does not involve fill or change roughness values . cause an increase in roughness values . Fill New attached garages in the flood fringe. Excavation that would change the New accessory structures — detached floodway or floodplain lines, change BFE garages, sheds, etc . — in the flood fringe or velocities Outdoor storage of materials that are not Change of Use defined as floatable materials . (Floatable materials are prohibited) . Driveways and Parking Areas that involve Driveways and Parking Areas that do not fill or change the floodway or floodplain involve fill and do not change the floodway lines . or floodplain lines . Floodway Modification LOMR or PMR 1 of 2 Current Poudre River Regulations Development that is Prohibited in the Floodway New residential structures New mixed-use structures New non-residential structures New additions Reconstruction of a substantially damaged structure New mobile homes Redevelopment New attached garages New accessory structures Floatable materials Critical facilities Change of use to residential or mixed-use or critical facility Development that is Prohibited in the Flood Fringe New residential structures New mixed-use structures New residential additions or residential additions to a mixed-use structure New mobile homes Redevelopment of residential and mixed-use New attached garages to residential structures Floatable materials Critical facilities Change of use to residential or mixed-use or critical facility 2of2 ATTACHMENT 3 WORK SESSION DRAFT - ADDITIONAL LEGAL REVIEW PENDING ORDINANCE NO . 12011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 10 OF THE CITY CODE TO REVISE THE REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO DEVELOPMENT IN THE POUDRE RIVER BASIN FLOODPLAIN [WHEREAS CLAUSES TO BE ADDED] NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows : Section 1 . That Section 10- 16 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows : Sec. 1046. Definitions. Adverse impact shall mean the net increase in flood risks to people and property, beyond acceptable tolerances as described in § 10- 81 , resulting from a development. In determining adverse impact, measures that reduce flood risk may be considered to offset impacts that increase flood risks on the development parcel, but not to offset impacts that increase flood risks on other properties . Dryland access shall mean a gravel, paved or concrete access route that connects a structure to a Dry Public Street, that is constructed above the base flood elevation, and that is of sufficient width to accommodate both emergency vehicles and other emergency access during evacuation of the site, considering the estimated number of people using the site and the expected mode (car, walking) of evacuation. Dry public road shall mean a public street at the intersection of a proposed driveway or access road where the surface of the pavement is at an elevation above the base flood elevation. Excavation shall mean the removal of material attached to or below grade at a specific location. Examples of excavation include removal of dirt or rock, concrete or other paving material, or tree roots . No increase in flood velocity shall mean, for a calculated rise in cross-section, an average flow velocity of 0 . 0 feet per second as rounded to the nearest one-tenth (0 . 1 ) of a foot per second. Daggett/agenda/ 11 /floodplain ORD for Work Session I WORK SESSION DRAFT - ADDITIONAL LEGAL REVIEW PENDING No rise shall mean the following : (a) for the Poudre River floodpiaiufringe, no rise shall mean a calculated rise in flood depth of 0 . 0 feet as rounded to the nearest one-tenth (0 . 1 ) of a foot; (b) for the Poudre River floodway and FEMA basin floodplains, no rise shall mean a calculated rise in flood depth of 0. 00 feet as the hydraulic models for said floodplains as rounded to the nearest one-tenth (0 . 1 ) of a foot;, and (c) for City basin floodplains, no rise shall mean a calculated rise in flood depth of 0 .00 feet as rounded to the nearest one-tenth (0 . 1 ) of a foot. Nonconforming structure shall mean a structure that was lawful at the time of constructionhieh and that is not now in conformity with the requirements of this Article, due to the adoption of or changes in said Article or due to the annexation of the property on which the structure is located. Nonconforming use shall mean a use that was lawful at the time initiated and that is not now in conformity with the requirements of this Article, due to the adoption of, or changes to, said Article, or due to the annexation of the property on which the use is located. Roughness coefficient shall mean a friction loss parameter that represents the effects of surface roughness, vegetation, channel irregularity and alignment, scour and deposition, debris, and sedimentation to steady flow hydraulic conditions in a natural or man-made channel, stream, creek or river. Roughness coefficient describes the cumulative level of resistance to flow in channels and overbank areas that impact the depth and horizontal extents of flooding within a watershed from the conditions on a site. Section 2 . That Section 10-26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new Paragraph ( 11 ) which reads in its entirety as follows : Sec. 10-26. General Manager' s powers and duties. The duties and responsibilities of the General Manager, as defined in § 10- 16, shall include but are not limited to : Daggett/agenda/ l 1 /floodplain ORD for Work Session 2 WORK SESSION DRAFT - ADDITIONAL LEGAL REVIEW PENDING ( 11 ) Receiving and considering applications for adverse impact determinations in accordance with § 10- 81 . Section 3 . That Section 10-27(e) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows : Sec. 10-27. Floodplain use permit. (e) When reviewing the application for a floodplain use permit, the General Manager shall determine which portions of any flood hazard areas are affected by the particular development request and then shall apply the provisions of this Article as applicable. The General Manager also sirallmay impose additional conditions upon the issuance of a floodplain use permit to minimize or mitigate flood hazards determine whether the proposed construction or development is inconsistent with the after considering the following factors : Section 4. That Section 10-27(i) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows : Sec . 10-27. Floodplain use permit. (i) No person who has obtained a floodplain use permit shall fail to construct in accordance with the approved application and design or any terms and conditions of said permit. Section 5 . That Section 10-28 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new Subsection (f) which reads in its entirety as follows : Sec. 10-28. Appeals/variance procedure. Daggett/agenda/ 11 /floodplain ORD for Work Session 3 WORK SESSION DRAFT - ADDITIONAL LEGAL REVIEW PENDING (f) Any proposed construction or development in the Poudre Basin floodplain that is subject to the requirements of § 10- 81 shall be reviewed according to the process set forth in that Section before a variance may be sought for any aspect of the proposed development. The Water Board shall consider the record of that review, including the determination made as a result of the review, in considering the variance, but shall not treat the variance as an appeal or reconsideration of said determination. Section 6 . That Section 10-46 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows : Sec . 10-46. Nonconforming structures and uses. A nonconforming structure or use may be—continue to exist, notwithstanding the provisions of this Article, subject to the following conditions : ( 1 ) If a nonconforming structure or a nonconforming use is abandoned for twelve ( 12) consecutive months, the structure or use shall conform to the requirements of this Article prior to any future use. Intent to resume active operations shall not affect the foregoing. Section 7 . That Section 10-71 (8) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows : Sec. 10-71 . Specific standards for development in Poudre River floodway. ( 8) Floodway modifications. Floodway modification is prohibited unless all applicable requirements, including but not limited to the requirements of § 10-45 and § 10-81 , are met. Section 8 . That Section 10-72 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows : Sec. 10-72. Specific standards for nonstructural development in Poudre River floodway. Daggett/agenda/ 11 /floodplain ORD for Work Session 4 WORK SESSION DRAFT - ADDITIONAL LEGAL REVIEW PENDING (2) Detention ponds . Construction of a new detention ponds is prohibited unless : , including but not limited to the requirements of § f 0-45 , are met, a, such construction will not result in any change to a floodplain boundary, and no fill will be required in connection with the construction or use of the improvements ; or b , the requirements of § 10- 81 are met. (3 ) Hard surface paths , trails and walkways . Construction of new hard surface paths, trails and walkways is prohibited unless all applicable - 4r,-are-met: a. such construction will not result in any change to a floodplain boundary, and no fill will be required in connection with the construction or use of the improvements ; or b , the requirements of § 10- 81 are met. (4) Fill. Placement of fill is prohibited unless all applicable requirements, including but not limited to the requirements of § 10-45 and § 10-81 , are met. (5 ) Outdoor storage/storage of floatable materials . a. Outdoor storage of materials associated with a nonresidential use that are not defined as floatable materials in § 10- 16, whether permanent or temporary, is prohibited, unless all applicable requirements, including but not limited to the requirements of § 10-45 and § 10-81 , are met. (6) Driveways and parking areas. Construction of new driveways and parking areas is prohibited unless all applicable requirements, including but not limited to the requiremcnts of § , arc a. such construction will not result in any change to a floodplain boundary, and no fill will be required in connection with the construction or use of the improvements ; or Daggett/agenda/ 11 /floodplain ORD for Work Session 5 WORK SESSION DRAFT - ADDITIONAL LEGAL REVIEW PENDING b , the requirements of § 10- 81 are met. (7) Vegetation. Placement of new vegetation in the floodway in a location or of a quantity or type that is determined by the General Manager to likely result, upon maturity, in an increase in base flood elevations or roughness coefficient is prohibited, unless all applicable requirements, including but not limited to the requirements of § 10-45 and § 10- 81 , are met. (8) Excavation. Excavation that would result in a change to a floodplain boundary is prohibited unless the requirements of § 10-81 are met. Section 9 . That Section 10- 73 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows : Sec. 10-73 . Floodway encroachments in Poudre River floodway. Any new development, obstruction or activity that will result in an encroachment in or modification to the floodway is prohibited, except to the extent all requirements, including without limitation the requirements of § 10-45 and § 10- 81 , are met. Section 10 . That Section 10-75 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows : Sec. 10-75. Specific standards for residential development in Poudre River flood fringe. (3 ) Remodeling and repairs. b . Reconstruction of a residential structure that has suffered substantial damage is allowed, provided that all applicable requirements, including but not limited to the requirements of § 10-37, are met. Reconstruction of a residential structure that has suffered substantial damage due in whole or in part to a flood event is prohibited. (4) Redevelopment. Daggett/agenda/ 11 /floodplain ORD for Work Session 6 WORK SESSION DRAFT - ADDITIONAL LEGAL REVIEW PENDING a. Redevelopment of a residential structure is allowed, provided that all applicable requirements, including but not limited to the requirements of § 10-37 and § 10- 81 , are met. Section 11 . That Section 10-76 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows : Sec. 1046. Specific standards for nonresidential development in Poudre River flood fringe. ( 1 ) New construction. a. Construction of a new nonresidential structure is allowed, provided that all applicable requirements, including but not limited to the requirements of § 10-37 and § 10- 81 , are met. (2) Additions . a. Addition to a nonresidential structure is allowed, provided that all applicable requirements, including but not limited to the requirements of § 10-37 and § 10- 81 , are met. (3 ) Remodeling and repairs . b. Reconstruction of a nonresidential structure that has suffered substantial damage is allowed, provided that all applicable requirements, including but not limited to the requirements of § 10-37, are met. Reconstruction of a non-residential structure that has suffered substantial damage due in whole or in part to a flood event is prohibited. (4) Redevelopment. Daggett/agenda/ 11 /floodplain ORD for Work Session 7 WORK SESSION DRAFT - ADDITIONAL LEGAL REVIEW PENDING a. Redevelopment of a nonresidential structure is allowed, provided that all applicable requirements, including but not limited to the requirements of § 10-37 and § 10- 81 , are met. Section 12 . That Section 10-77 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows : Sec. 10-77. Specific standards for mixed-use development in Poudre River flood fringe. (2) Additions . a. An addition to a mixed-use structure is prohibited, except that an addition to a mixed use structure that results in expansion of only nonresidential floors of said structure is allowed, provided that all applicable requirements, including but not limited to the requirements of § 10-37 and § 10- 81 , are met. (3 ) Remodeling and repairs . b. Reconstruction of a mixed-use structure that has suffered substantial damage is allowed, provided that all applicable requirements, including but not limited to the requirements of § 10-37 , are met. Reconstruction of a mixed-use structure that has suffered substantial damage due in whole or in part to a flood event is prohibited. (4) Redevelopment. a. Redevelopment of a mixed-use structure is allowed, provided that all applicable requirements, including but not limited to the requirements of § 10-37 and § 10- 81 , are met. Daggett/agenda/ 11 /floodplain ORD for Work Session 8 WORK SESSION DRAFT - ADDITIONAL LEGAL REVIEW PENDING Section 13 . That Section 10-78 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows : Sec. 1048. Specific standards for nonstructural development in Poudre River flood fringe. In addition to complying with all other applicable provisions of this Article, all nonstructural development in the flood fringe of the Poudre River floodplain, as designated pursuant to § 10- 19, shall comply with the following provisions unless removed from the flood fringe in accordance with § 10- 80 . If there is any conflict between any of the following provisions and any other provision of this Article, the more restrictive provision shall control . ( 1 ) Fencing. Fencing is not restricted-. Construction of new fencing is prohibited, unless : a. the fencing is designed to break away, and is cabled together so as to not float downstream; b . the fencing is designed to allow the passage of water by having a flap or opening in the areas at or below the base flood elevation sufficient to allow floodwaters to pass freely; or C . the requirements of § 10- 81 are met. (2) Detention ponds . Detention ponds are not restricted. Construction of a new detention pond is prohibited unless : a, such construction will not result in any change to a floodplain boundary, and no fill will be required in connection with the construction or use of the improvements ; or b , the requirements of § 10- 81 are met. (3 ) Hard surface paths, trails and walkways. Hard surface paths , trails and walkways are not restricted. Construction of new hard surface paths, trails and walkways is prohibited unless : Daggett/agenda/ 11 /floodplain ORD for Work Session 9 WORK SESSION DRAFT - ADDITIONAL LEGAL REVIEW PENDING a. such construction will not result in any change to a floodplain boundary, and no fill will be required in connection with the construction or use of the improvements ; or b , the requirements of § 10- 81 are met. (4) Fill. Placement of fill is not rcstrieted.Placement of fill is prohibited unless all applicable requirements, including but not limited to the requirements of § 10-45 and § 10-81 , are met. (5) Outdoor storage/storage of floatable materials . a. Outdoor storage of materials associated with a nonresidential use that are not defined as floatable materials in § 10- 16 is not restricted, whether permanent or temporary, is prohibited, unless all applicable requirements, including but not limited to the requirements of § 10-45 and § 10- 81 , are met. b. Storage of floatable materials associated with a nonresidential use, whether permanent or temporary, is prohibited, except for that storage of floatable materials that was occurring as of July 1 , 2000, which storage shall be allowed to continue until but only until the development of a new structure or addition or the cumulative substantial improvement of any existing structure, at which time such storage must be discontinued. (6) Driveways and parking areas . Construction of new driveways and parking areas is is prohibited unless : a. such construction will not result in any change to a floodplain boundary, and no fill will be required in connection with the construction or use of the improvements ; or b , the requirements of § 10- 81 are met. (7) Vegetation. Placement of new vegetation in the floodway in a location or of a quantity or type that is determined by the General Manager to likely result, upon maturity, in an increase in base flood elevations or roughness coefficient is prohibited, unless all applicable requirements, including but not limited to the requirements of § 10-45 and § 10- 81 , are met. Daggett/agenda/ 11 /floodplain ORD for Work Session 10 WORK SESSION DRAFT - ADDITIONAL LEGAL REVIEW PENDING Section 14 . That Section 10- 80 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows : Sec. 10-80. Removal of property from Poudre River flood fringe. (a) Property located in the flood fringe of the Poudre River shall be removed from the flood fringe only after the requirements of § 10- 81 are met, and only if one ( 1 ) of the following conditions is satisfied, but shall remain subject to the provisions of this Section: (b) LOMA. A FEMA Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) shall not be subject to the requirements of § 10-81 . (be) If the property removed from the flood fringe pursuant to Subsection (a) or Subsection (b) of this Section remains in the five-hundred-year floodplain after such removal, any development on the property shall comply with all requirements and prohibitions of this Article pertaining to the five-hundred-year floodplain. (d) It shall be a violation of this Article for any property owner to fail to comply with all requirements and conditions attached to the approval of a map revision described in this Section by the City or FEMA. Section 15 . That a new Section 10-81 be inserted after existing Section 10-79 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, which new Section 10-81 shall read as follows : Sec . 10-81 . Adverse Impact Review. Any proposed development identified in this Article as subject to the requirements of this § 10- 81 must fully comply with the requirements set forth in this Section in order to be eligible for a floodplain use permit. (a) Adverse Impact Review Applications. ( 1 ) Adverse Impact Application Submittal Requirements . A master list of adverse impact determination submittal requirements shall be established by the General Manager. The master list shall, at a minimum, include a list of all information, data, explanations, analysis, testing, reports, tables, graphics, maps, documents, forms or other items reasonably necessary, desirable or convenient for the General Manager' s determination under this Section, Daggett/agenda/ I 1 /floodplain ORD for Work Session II WORK SESSION DRAFT - ADDITIONAL LEGAL REVIEW PENDING together with the number of copies of required of each item. Each application for an adverse impact determination shall be submitted to the General Manager and shall include the items on the master list that are identified as submittal requirements for that development application. The General Manager may waive items on the master list that are not applicable due to the particular conditions and circumstances of the development proposal. Application submittals must be signed and stamped by a professional engineer and a Certified Floodplain Manager accredited by the Association of State Floodplain Managers . (2) Adverse Impact Determination Review Fees. Adverse impact review fees are hereby established for the purpose of recovering the costs incurred by the City in processing, reviewing, and recording applications pertaining to adverse impact determinations, and issuing permits related thereto . The City Manager shall establish a fee schedule based upon a reasonable estimate of the actual expenses incurred by or on behalf of the City in administering and reviewing adverse impact determination applications . The schedule of fees shall be reviewed annually and shall be adjusted by the City Manager if necessary to reflect the effects of inflation or other increases or decreases in costs . A separate fee shall be established for administrative review and for the review hearing process . The administrative review fee shall be paid at the time of submittal of any application for an adverse impact determination. Upon a determination that a review hearing is required, further review of the application will proceed upon payment of the applicable fee for the review hearing process . (3 ) Determination of Sufficiency. After receipt of an application for an adverse impact determination, the General Manager shall determine whether the application is complete and ready for review. If a submittal is found to be insufficient, the General Manager shall hold all review of the submittal in abeyance until he receives the necessary material to determine that the submittal is sufficient. The application shall not be reviewed on its merits by the decision maker until the General Manager has determined that the application is sufficient and complete. (b) Administrative Approval. ( 1 ) Administrative Review. After a determination of sufficiency of an application, the applicant may request to proceed to the review hearing process set forth in Subsection (c), without completing the administrative review under this Subsection (b) . The General Manager shall review the Daggett/agenda/ I 1 /floodplain ORD for Work Session 12 WORK SESSION DRAFT - ADDITIONAL LEGAL REVIEW PENDING completed application to determine whether the proposed development meets each of the conditions set forth in Subsection (b)(4) and therefore may be administratively determined to be eligible for a floodplain use permit. (2) Outcome of Review. The General Manager shall complete his or her review and issue a determination as to whether the requirements of Subsection (b)(4) have been met no later than thirty (30) days after an application becomes active for review. The General Manager shall either: a. find that the proposed development as described in the application meets the requirements described in Subsection (b)(4) ; or b , find that the proposed development does not meet the requirements described in Subsection (b)(4) , in which event the applicant must complete the public notice and hearing process and meet the standards described in Subsection (c) , below, in order to be eligible for a floodplain use permit. (3 ) Written Determination . The General Manager' s written determination shall contain a clear statement of the basis upon which his or her determination was made, including, if applicable, conditions on which the findings were premised or specific potential impacts of concern that require more detailed analysis and consideration, and shall be mailed to the applicant within three (3 ) days after issuance. A copy of the decision shall also be made available to the public at the offices of the General Manager, during normal business hours, within three (3 ) days after issuance of the decision. The administrative decision of the General Manager to require notice and a public hearing on application shall not be subject to administrative review or appeal. (4) Standards ForAdministrative Determination . The standards that the General Manager shall apply in making an administrative determination pursuant to this Subsection (b) are as follows : a. Human life and safety. The proposed development must not result in new or additional persons occupying or present in the floodplain. b. Dyyland access . The proposed development must retain or provide dryland access from any structure subject to this § 10- 81 for persons using the site and for emergency response, and must not reduce or eliminate existing dryland access present on or adjacent to the site . Daggett/agenda/ 11 /floodplain ORD for Work Session 13 WORK SESSION DRAFT - ADDITIONAL LEGAL REVIEW PENDING c . Emergency preparedness. The proposed development must include detailed and effective emergency warning and evacuation plans, procedures and systems appropriate for the level and nature of the human occupants of the site . d. Structure design . Any structure or addition subject to this § 10- 81 must be designed to withstand flood forces and the force of flood- driven debris, and to not generate debris, based on an analysis of the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads to which the structures would be subject. e . Flood damage-resistant materials . Below the regulatory flood protection elevation, any structure or addition subject to this § 10- 81 must be composed of Flood Damage-Resistant Materials designated as Class 4 or Class 5 by FEMA in its Technical Bulletin 2 , dated August 2008 , entitled "Flood Damage-Resistant Materials Requirements for Buildings Located in Special Flood Hazard Areas in Accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program". In structures that meet the floodproofing requirements of § 10-38 , interior finishes that are protected by floodproofing need not be composed of materials designated by FEMA as flood damage- resistant materials . f. Elevation/floodproofing/other requirements. Any structure or addition subject to this § 10-81 must be elevated or floodproofed and all structures and nonstructural improvements must meet all otherwise applicable requirements and restrictions of this Article. g. Base flood elevation. The proposed development must not result in an increase in base flood elevation on any off-site location or on any existing structure . h. Flood velocities . The proposed development must not result in an increase in flood velocities on any off-site location. i. Floodway boundaries . The proposed development must not result in any change to a floodway boundary. j . Prevention of natural erosion . The proposed development must be located and designed so as to prevent damage from foreseeable natural erosion of the channel bed and banks . Daggett/agenda/ I 1 /floodplain ORD for Work Session 14 WORK SESSION DRAFT - ADDITIONAL LEGAL REVIEW PENDING k. On-site erosion potential. The proposed development must not result in an increase in erosion potential on-site or a decrease in channel stability on-site, considering any on-site mitigation (but excluding from consideration any off-site mitigation) included as part of the proposed development. 1. Off-site erosion potential. The proposed development must not result in an increase in erosion potential off-site or a decrease in channel stability off-site, excluding from consideration any mitigation included as part of the proposed development. In, Prevention of debris . The proposed development must not result in floatable materials that are prohibited under § 10- 16, and must not increase the potential for materials that are not within the definition of floatable materials but that could generate debris or become debris, and that as a result could affect flood flows or damage structures on or off the development site, or be swept from the development site by flood flows . The proposed development must include mitigation measures adequate to prevent the migration of any such materials from the site . n. Blockages and damming. The proposed development must be located and designed so as to prevent damage from flood flows that could result from blockages and damming that is reasonably foreseeable from vehicles, equipment, trees, or other items or materials that could be carried by flood flows and affect the proposed development site . o. Stormwater master plans . The proposed development must not be inconsistent with the terms of any Stormwater Master Plan documents . (c) Adverse Impact Review Hearing. ( 1 ) Review Hearing Process Initiated. Promptly after the General Manager has determined that a development does not meet the requirements of Subsection (b)(4), or upon the request of an applicant who has requested to proceed to the review hearing process provided for herein without seeking administrative review under Subsection (b) , the General Manager shall initiate the adverse impact review hearing process . Daggett/agenda/ 11 /floodplain ORD for Work Session 15 WORK SESSION DRAFT - ADDITIONAL LEGAL REVIEW PENDING (2) Referral forAgency Review. The General Manager may refer an application to appropriate review agencies for review and comment. In addition to owners of any public facilities within the notice area, in the discretion of the General Manager applications may be referred to Building and Zoning, Police Services, other City departments, Poudre Fire Authority, the U. S . Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, the Colorado Water Conservation Board, potentially affected irrigation or reservoir companies, and other potentially affected public and quasi-governmental regulators, service or utility providers , for review and comment as to issues within the jurisdiction of, or related to facilities or services provided by, such referral agencies . (3 ) Staff Report. No more than thirty (30) days after initiation of the review hearing process, the General Manager shall prepare a Staff Report. The time for completion of the Staff Report shall be extended in the event the applicant agrees to a later date for the Staff Report, or unless circumstances beyond the control of the General Manager require additional time to complete the Staff Report, in which event the Staff Report shall be completed as soon as reasonably practicable. The Staff Report shall be made available to the applicant and the public for inspection and copying prior to the scheduled public hearing on the application. The Staff Report shall indicate whether, in the opinion of City staff, the application complies with the applicable standards ofthis Section. Conditions for approval may also be recommended to eliminate potential for noncompliance or avoid adverse impacts that may result from the proposed development. Once finalized, the Staff Report shall be provided to the applicant and to the decision maker, and shall become part of the record for the application under review. (4) Setting of Hearing Date. Upon completion of the Staff Report, the General Manager shall arrange for and schedule a public hearing on the pending application. The hearing shall be no less than fourteen ( 14) days and no more than thirty-five (35) days after completion of the Staff Report, unless the applicant agrees to a later date for the hearing, or unless circumstances beyond the control of the General Manager require that a later hearing date be scheduled, in which event the hearing shall be scheduled for a date as early as reasonably practicable . (5 ) Submittal of Additional Materials. In the event an applicant submits additional data or other new information related to the pending application for an adverse impact determination after the Staff Report has been finalized, the General Manager may, in his or her discretion, allow additional time for review of the additional data and revision of the Staff Report, and may reset Daggett/agenda/ 11 /floodplain ORD for Work Session 16 WORK SESSION DRAFT - ADDITIONAL LEGAL REVIEW PENDING the date for the public hearing based upon the date of the reissuance of the Staff Report. (6) Notice. a. Mailed Notice. The General Manager shall mail written notice to the following : i. The owners of record of all real property within one thousand ( 1 ,000) feet of the property lines of the parcel of land for which the development is proposed. For the purpose of determining this one-thousand-foot area only, public rights-of-way, public facilities, parks or public pen space shall be excluded; ii. The owners of record of all real property located within the flood flow modeling reach or reaches shown in the application submitted by the applicant, as determined by the General Manager; and iii. All persons who have requested notice of adverse impact determination proceedings generally, or in advance of or in connection with the pending application. In addition, the General Manager may further expand the notification area. Owners of record, including but not limited to any governmental or other public entities owning property within the defined area, shall be ascertained according to the records of the Larimer County Assessor's Office, unless more current information is made available in writing to the General Manager prior to the mailing of the notices. Formally designated representatives of bona fide neighborhood groups and organizations and homeowners' associations within the area of notification shall also receive written notice. Such written notices shall be mailed at least fourteen ( 14) days prior to the public hearing/meeting date for the adverse impact determination. The General Manager shall provide the applicant with a map delineating the required area of notification, which area may be extended by the General Manager to the nearest streets or other distinctive physical features which would create a practical and rational boundary for the area of notification. The applicant shall pay postage and handling costs as established in the adverse impact review fee schedule. Failure to mail such notice shall not affect the validity of any hearing, meeting or determination by the decision maker. b. Posted Notice. The real property proposed to be developed shall also be posted with a sign giving notice to the general public of the proposed Daggett/agenda/ 11 /floodplain ORD for Work Session 17 WORK SESSION DRAFT - ADDITIONAL LEGAL REVIEW PENDING development. For parcels of land exceeding ten ( 10) acres in size, two (2) signs shall be posted. The sign(s) required to be posted shall be no less than twelve ( 12) square feet in size. Such signs shall be provided by the General Manager and shall be posted on the subject property in a manner and at a location or locations reasonably calculated by the General Manager to afford the best notice to the public, which posting shall occur within fourteen ( 14) days following submittal to the General Manager of an application for an adverse impact determination. C. Published Notice. Notice of the time, date and place of the public hearing/ meeting on the application for an adverse impact determination and the subject matter of the hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the city at least seven (7) days prior to such hearing/meeting. (7) Public Hearing. a. Decision Maker. After completion of the foregoing procedures, the General Manager shall cause an application submitted pursuant to this Section to be reviewed and a determination as to adverse impact made, whether by the General Manager or by a qualified hearing officer appointed by the General Manager, as set forth in this Subsection (c). References herein to the "decision maker" are intended to mean the person responsible for conducting the hearing and making a determination pursuant to this Subsection (c). b. Technical Advisory Panel. The General Manager may from time to time appoint a technical advisory panel consisting of appropriate experts to consider and provide analysis and testimony related to the evaluation of adverse impacts associated with a proposed development. In the event that an applicant for adverse impact review requests that an advisory panel be appointed in connection with said applicant' s application, the General Manager shall appoint such a panel as provided herein. In all other cases, it shall be within the discretion of the General Manager to determine, with respect to any pending application for adverse impact review, whether a technical advisory panel would be beneficial to him or her in making a determination as to adverse impacts. In any event, it shall be within the discretion of the General Manager to determine the size and composition of the technical advisory panel to be appointed in a particular matter, based upon the complexity and nature of the potential impacts associated with a proposed development under review. The Daggett/agenda/ 11 /floodplain ORD for Work Session 18 WORK SESSION DRAFT - ADDITIONAL LEGAL REVIEW PENDING application for adverse impact review, initial administrative decision by the General Manager, if any, and Staff Report, together with any written comment or additional information developed in response to or in support of a pending application, shall each be provided to all members of any technical advisory panel for review as such materials become available. c. Conduct of Public Hearing. 1 . Rights of All Persons. Any person may appear at a public hearing and submit evidence, either individually or as a representative of a person or an organization. Each person who appears at a public hearing shall state his or her name, address and, if appearing on behalf of a person or organization, the name and mailing address of the person or organization being represented. 2. Exclusion of Testimony. The decision maker conducting the public hearing may exclude testimony or evidence that he or she finds to be irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious. 3 . Continuance ofPublic Hearing. The decision maker conducting the public hearing may, on his or her own motion or at the request of any person, continue the public hearing to a fixed date, time and place. All continuances shall be granted at the discretion of the decision maker. 4. Order of Proceedings at Public Hearing. The order of the proceedings at the public hearing shall be governed by administrative procedures established by the General Manager, which shall include the following items, among such other items as the General Manager determines to be appropriate : project overview by City staff, applicant presentation, presentation of Staff Report, public testimony, opportunity for applicant and for City staff to respond, comment and discussion of the technical advisory panel, if any, and questions from the decision maker. d. Determination and Findings. 1 . Determination. After consideration of the application, the Staff Report and the evidence from the public hearing, the decision Daggett/agenda/ 11 /floodplain ORD for Work Session 19 WORK SESSION DRAFT - ADDITIONAL LEGAL REVIEW PENDING maker shall close the public hearing. Within ten ( 10) working days following the public hearing, the decision maker shall issue a written determination as to adverse impact based on the standards set forth in Subsection 8, hereinafter. The written determination shall be mailed to the applicant and any person who provided testimony at the public hearing. 2. Findings. All determinations shall include at least the following elements : i a clear statement of the determination of whether the standards of Subsection 8 have been met; ii. a clear statement of the basis upon which the determination was made, including specific findings of fact with reference to each of the relevant standards set forth in Subsection 8, hereinafter; and iii. any conditions upon which the determination is based. e. Notification to Applicant. Notification of the decision maker's determination shall be provided by the General Manager to the applicant by mail within three (3) days after issuance of the determination. A copy of the determination shall also be made available to the public at the offices of the General Manager, during normal business hours, within three (3) days after issuance. f. Record of Proceedings. 1 . Recording of Public Hearing. The decision maker conducting a public hearing pursuant to this Subsection (c) shall record the public hearing by any appropriate means. A copy of the public hearing record may be obtained by any person upon application to the General Manager and payment of a fee to cover the cost of duplication of the record. 2. The Record. The record shall consist of the following: i. all exhibits, including, without limitation, all writings, drawings, maps, charts, graphs, photographs and other Daggett/agenda/ 11 /floodplain ORD for Work Session 20 WORK SESSION DRAFT - ADDITIONAL LEGAL REVIEW PENDING tangible items received or viewed by the decision maker at the proceedings ; ii, all minutes of the proceedings; iii. if appealed to the City Council, a verbatim transcript of the proceedings before the decision maker. The cost of the transcript shall be borne by the City. iv, if available, a videotape recording of the proceedings before the decision maker. (8) Standards. In order for a proposed development to be eligible for a floodplain use permit, each of the following standards must be met, considering any preventive or mitigation measures included as part of the development and any related additional requirements or conditions imposed by the decision maker: a. Human life and safety. The proposed development must not result in a projected increase in risk to human life and safety, considering the net effect of the development proposed, mitigation measures, and the reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect consequences of flood flows on the property. In addition to this overall determination, specific factors that must be met shall include the following: i. Dyyland access. The proposed development must retain or provide dryland access from any structure subject to this § 10-81 for persons using the site and for emergency response, and must not reduce or eliminate existing dryland access present on or adjacent to the site. ii Emergency preparedness. If the proposed development would result in new or additional persons occupying or present in the floodplain (whether due to employment there, or as an invitee, user or customer), the development must provide detailed and effective emergency warning and evacuation plans, procedures and systems appropriate for the level and nature of all human occupation of the site that must be implemented prior to occupation of the site after development. b. Structure design. Any structure or addition subject to this § 10-81 must be designed to withstand flood forces and the force of flood-driven Daggett/agenda/ II /floodplain ORD for Work Session 21 WORK SESSION DRAFT - ADDITIONAL LEGAL REVIEW PENDING debris, and to not generate debris, based on an analysis of the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads to which the structures would be subject. c. Flood damage-resistant materials. Below the regulatory flood protection elevation, any structure or addition subject to this § 10-81 must be composed of Flood Damage-Resistant Materials designated as Class 4 or Class 5 by FEMA in its Technical Bulletin 2, dated August 2008 , entitled "Flood Damage-Resistant Materials Requirements for Buildings Located in Special Flood Hazard Areas in Accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program". In structures that meet the floodproofing requirements of § 10-38, interior finishes that are protected by floodproofing are not required to be composed of materials designated by FEMA as flood damage-resistant materials. d. Elevation/floodproofing/other requirements. Any structure or addition subject to this § 10-81 must be elevated or floodproofed and all structures and nonstructural improvements must meet all otherwise applicable requirements and restrictions of this Article. e. Base flood elevation. The proposed development must not result in an increase in base flood elevation on any existing structure. If the proposed development would result in an increase in base flood elevation on any off-site location (where no structures are affected), the applicant must obtain written consent of all persons whose property would be so affected, which consent shall be in the form of an easement or other recorded legally binding document. f. Flood velocities. If the proposed development would result in an increase in flood velocities on any off-site location, the applicant must obtain written consent of all persons whose property would be so affected, which consent shall be in the form of an easement or other recorded legally binding document. g. Floodway boundaries. If the proposed development would result in any change to a floodway boundary, the applicant must obtain written consent of all persons whose property would be so affected, which consent shall be in the form of an easement or other recorded legally binding document. Any change to a floodway boundary must be completed in accordance with § 10-45 . Daggett/agenda/ 11 /floodplain ORD for Work Session 22 WORK SESSION DRAFT - ADDITIONAL LEGAL REVIEW PENDING h. Prevention of natural erosion. The proposed development must be located and designed so as to prevent damage from foreseeable natural erosion of the channel bed and banks. i. On-site erosion potential. If the proposed development would result in an increase in erosion potential on-site or a decrease in channel stability on-site, mitigation adequate to prevent damage from such conditions and to prevent aggravation or migration of such conditions must be included as part of the proposed development, and as a condition of proceeding, the applicant must obtain written consent of all persons whose property would be so affected, which consent shall be in the form of an easement or other recorded legally binding document. j . Off-site erosion potential. If the proposed development would result in an increase in erosion potential off-site or a decrease in channel stability off-site, mitigation adequate to prevent damage from such conditions and to prevent aggravation or migration of such conditions must be included as part of the proposed development, and as a condition of proceeding, the applicant must obtain written consent of all persons whose property would be so affected, which consent shall be in the form of an easement or other recorded legally binding document. k. Prevention of debris. The proposed development must not result in floatable materials that are prohibited under § 10- 16, and must not increase the potential for materials that are not within the definition of floatable materials but that could generate debris or become debris, and that as a result could affect flood flows or damage structures on or offthe development site, or be swept from the development site by flood flows. The proposed development must include mitigation measures adequate to prevent the migration of any such materials from the site. 1. Blockages and damming. The proposed development must be located and designed so as to prevent damage from flood flows that could result from blockages and damming that is reasonably foreseeable from vehicles, equipment, trees, or other items or materials that would be carried by flood flows and affect the proposed development site. m. Stormwater master plans. The proposed development must not be inconsistent with the terms of any Stormwater Master Plan documents. Daggett/agenda/ 11 /floodplain ORD for Work Session 23 WORK SESSION DRAFT - ADDITIONAL LEGAL REVIEW PENDING (9) Conditions of Approval. The decision maker may impose such conditions in connection with an adverse impact determination as are necessary to accomplish the purposes and intent of this Section, or such conditions as have a reasonable nexus to potential impacts of the proposed development, and that are roughly proportional, both in nature and extent, to the impacts of the proposed development. ( 10) Determinations and Recording of Related Matters. Upon the expiration of the appeal period for any determination hereunder, the determination shall be applicable in connection with a floodplain use permit application, if any, for the proposed development, unless such determination has been amended or has lapsed. Prior to issuance of a floodplain use permit, any restrictive covenants, easements or other documents required to implement conditions set forth in the determination shall be recorded in the Office of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder and shall be filed with the City Clerk. (11 ) Appeals. Appeals of any final determination of a decision maker under this Section shall be only in accordance with Chapter 2, Article Il, Division 3 of the City Code. (12) Amendments. a. Minor Amendments. ( 1 ) Scope of Minor Amendments. Minor amendments to any adverse impact determination may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied administratively by the General Manager and may be authorized without additional public hearings. Such minor amendments may be approved by the General Manager only if the modifications to the proposed plan of development can be determined to have no or only insignificant impacts to the flood hazard analysis completed in connection with an existing and effective adverse impact determination, and to raise no new or changed questions or concerns related thereto. The effective date of such minor amendments, for purposes of determining the date of lapse thereof, shall be deemed to be the date of the original adverse impact determination to which the minor amendment relates. (2) Review Process. Upon submittal of an application for a minor amendment, including all items required by the General Daggett/agenda/ l l /floodplain ORD for Work Session 24 WORK SESSION DRAFT - ADDITIONAL LEGAL REVIEW PENDING Manager to be submitted in connection with minor amendments pursuant to Subsection 12(a), above, if the General Manager determines that the proposed amendments may alter the flood risk analysis and application of the standards upon which the original determination was based, or determines that further development of information related to the proposed amendment is required, the General Manager shall reclassify the amendment as a major amendment, and shall process the application as described below. (3) Appeals. Appeals of the decision of the General Manager regarding the approval, approval with conditions or denial of minor amendments of any adverse impact determination shall be appealable to the Water Board. Any such appeal shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal of the final decision with the General Manager within fourteen ( 14) days after the date of the General Manager' s decision on the minor amendment that is the subject of the appeal. The decision of the Water Board on such appeals shall constitute a final decision appealable pursuant to Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code. b. Major Amendments. ( 1 ) Procedure/Criteria. Amendments to any adverse impact determination that are not determined by the General Manager to be minor amendments under the criteria set forth in Subsection 12(a) above, shall be deemed major amendments. Amendments to developments for which a floodplain use permit was issued under the laws of the city prior to the adoption of this Section 10-81 shall be processed as new proposed development and shall be subject to the submittal and hearing requirements as set forth in this Section 10-81 . Major amendments to development for which an adverse impact determination has been completed under this Section shall be reviewed and processed in the same manner as required for a new adverse impact determination. The effective date of such major amendments, for purposes of determining the date of lapse thereof, shall be deemed to be the date of the final decision on the adverse impact determination as amended. Daggett/agenda/ 11 /floodplain ORD for Work Session 25 WORK SESSION DRAFT - ADDITIONAL LEGAL REVIEW PENDING (2) Appeals. Appeals of decisions for approval, approval with conditions or denial of maj or amendments to any adverse impact determination shall be only in accordance with Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code. ( 13) Lapse. a. Application Submittals. An application submitted to the General Manager for an adverse impact determination must be diligently pursued and processed by the applicant. Accordingly, the applicant, within sixty (60) days of receipt of written comments and notice to respond from the General Manager on any submittal (or subsequent revision to a submittal) of an application for an adverse impact determination, shall file such additional or revised submittal documents as are necessary to address such comments from the General Manager. If the additional submittal information or revised submittal is not filed within said period of time, the application shall automatically lapse and become null and void. The General Manager may grant one ( 1 ) extension of the foregoing period for completion, which extension may not exceed forty- five (45) days in length, and one ( 1 ) additional extension which may not exceed ten ( 10) days in length. b. Adverse Impact Determinations. Within a maximum of three (3) years following the issuance of an adverse impact determination hereunder, the applicant must proceed by obtaining the General Manager's approval of a floodplain use permit for all or any phases of development identified and approved to proceed hereunder. If such floodplain use permit approval is not timely obtained, the adverse impact determination (or any portion thereof which has not received a floodplain use permit) shall automatically lapse and become null and void. The General Manager may grant one ( 1 ) extension of the foregoing three-year requirement, which extension may not exceed six (6) months in length. Section 16. That Section 10-81 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows : See. 10-$t82. Specific standards for Poudre River five-hundred-year floodplain and zone X shaded areas. (a) Critical facilities. In any portion of the Poudre River five-hundred-year floodplain or a zone X shaded area, as designated pursuant to § 10- 19, critical facilities Daggett/agenda/ 11 /floodplain ORD for Work Session 26 WORK SESSION DRAFT - ADDITIONAL LEGAL REVIEW PENDING are prohibited, except that, for the purpose of this Section only, critical facilities shall not include structures or facilities that constitute critical facilities solely because they produce, use or store hazardous, flammable, explosive, toxic and/or water reactive materials, liquids, gases and solids as such are defined in § 9- 1 and § 9-2 of the Uniform Fire Code, as adopted. (b) Change of use. No person shall change the use of any structure or property located in the Poudre River five-hundred-year floodplain or a zone X shaded area so as to result in a new use or new nonconforming structure that is inconsistent with the requirements of this Article. Section 17 . That the effective date of Section 1 through Section 16 of this Ordinance shall be , 2011 . Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this day of A.D. 2011 , and to be presented for final passage on the day of , A.D. 2011 . Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the day of , A.D. 2011 , Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Daggett/agenda/ 11 /floodplain ORD for Work Session 27 WORK SESSION DRAFT - ADDITIONAL LEGAL REVIEW PENDING Daggett/agenda/ l l /floodplain ORD for Work Session 28 ATTACHMENT Poudre River Floodplain Regulation Review Process DRAFT 2- 15-2011 Development Submittal for Development Located In Poudre River Floodplain Review Center r Property Floodway, Location Flood Frin e Flood Fringe Floodway 0r ? Flood Fringe Standards loodway Standards » . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Existing Process asicRevie New Process Basic Review Vs Adverse Impact ' Adverse Impact Review Review Submit required Submit required 0-71-10-8 data and analyses Data and analyses 10-81 a 1 Meets Complete No Criteria? Application? No 10-46, 0-81 (a)(3 0-71-- 10-80 10-82 Y s Yes Administrative Review 'unless waived by applicant 10-81 (b) No CLOMR Yes Needed? FIssue r cess FEM Process Yes Meets Administrative oodplain CLOMRApproval Review?Permit 10-45, 10-8010-81 (b)(4-27 Issue Floodplain Use Permit Construction 10-27 Construction of all site Resubmit Resubmit elements shown or Submit As-Builts in CLOMR Hearing f10-281 btain Certificate of Submit As-Builts He ring Occupancy Hearing Process LOMR Approval Initiated Resubmitmit 10-45, 10-80 10-81 (c)(1 ) ppeal? Referral Agency Review 10-81(c)(2) peal Construct Structures in areas Staff Report removed from 10.8 c 3 ce Variance flood lain b LOMIR ( )( ) l? Hearing Date Set l 10-81(c)(4) to Variance to Obtain Certificate of ncil Water Board Occupancy Notifications 8 10-28 10-81(c)(6) Public Hearing 10-81(c)(7) Yes Meets Hearing Standards? 10-81 (c)(8) 0 Resubmit Or Resubmit Variance/Appeal? Variant Appeal Variance Variance D OR Appeal? D 0 2 Ap eal m Variance to Appeal to Water Board City Council 10-28 10-81 c 11 A :. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .: Poudre River Floodplain Regulations Potential Revisions City Council Work Session February 22 , 2011 Ken Sampley, P. E. Stormwater and Floodplain Program Manager Marsha Hilmes-Robinson , CFM Floodplain Administrator Brian Varrella, P. E., CFM Floodplain Administrator Presentation Outline • Background Information • General Direction / Specific Questions ATTACHMENT 5 • Council Leadership Team • Adverse Impact Review (AIR) • Public Outreach and Feedback • Criteria and Standards • Review Process • Adverse Impact Review (AIR) Examples '�tf Background Information • This process was requested by City Council - In 2008 , City Council asked Staff to work with the Water Board to revise the Stormwater program . - Review of the Cache La Poudre ( Poudre) River Floodplain Regulations is just one aspect of the overall Stormwater Repurposing effort. I '- "J , City of *" Fort Collins General Direction / Specific Questions 1 . Does Council feel that sufficient outreach and analysis has been provided to fully understand the criteria and process associated with the Adverse Impact Review option ( Option #4 as redefined ) ? 2 . Does Council desire specific revisions to the Adverse Impact Review option ? ,.�tf�s General Direction / Specific Questions 3 . Does Council have sufficient information to make an informed decision regarding the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations ? [tins Council Leadership Team • Focus efforts on Option # 4 as redefined • Option Description - " development will be permitted in the floodplain only if any adverse impacts on downstream or upstream properties can be either entirely avoided or adequately mitigated according to established criteria " F�t [tins Council Leadership Team ( Cont ' d ) • Provide for a case - by-case determination of acceptable impacts on other properties versus a " one size fits all " numerical criterion • A hearing review process should be provided with discretion guided by criteria established in the regulations fly Adverse Impact Review (AIR) • Case -by-case determination • Adverse impacts must be entirely avoided or adequately mitigated according to established criteria • Multi -tiered Adverse Impact Review Process • Administrative Determination • Hearing Review Determination F�t [tins Adverse Impact Review (AIR) • Engineering analyses certified by a Professional Engineer and Certified Floodplain Manager : • No significant increase in BFE • No increased life -safety or property damage potential • No significant adverse impacts on adjacent , upstream and downstream property 11ins Public Outreach and Feedback Outreach • LLAC of the Chamber of Commerce • Water Board • Downtown Development Authority ( DDA) • NAI Working Committee F�t [tins Public Outreach and Feedback NAI Working Committee • Intensive and detailed review and discussion of the criteria and review process • Members representing varying community values and interests ( Listed in AIS ) • Met on three ( 3 ) separate occasions • Meeting Minutes (Attachment 1 ) fly Public Outreach and Feedback NAI Working Committee • Key issues identified include : • Committee members had differing perspectives on several points . • Several Committee members stated that the need for change to the existing regulations has not clearly been defined - what is the driving force behind making these changes? • The developers and business representatives did not agree that the current regulations allowing a 6" rise in base flood elevation with activities in the flood fringe is a problem that warrants changing the existing regulations . FL [tins Public Outreach and Feedback NAI Working Committee • Key issues identified include : • Concerns were expressed regarding the additional economic costs associated with preparing the adverse impact determination and additional time required to complete the review process • The Working Committee highly recommended the use of a Hearing Panel review rather than just a single person Hearing Officer. • Several Committee members noted these are sweeping changes that require more definition of the problem and more vetting in the community. F8r Collins Public Outreach and Feedback NAI Working Committee • Key issues identified include : • The specified timeline by Council is too short for staff to properly evaluate the approach and develop appropriate criteria and a review process . • One Committee member suggested that the approach should be used on test cases of hypothetical developments in order to review the process and identify implementation issues . • One Committee member thought smaller properties would find it difficult to comply with the no significant adverse impact requirement and would therefore be prohibited from redevelopment. FL tfollins � Public Outreach and Feedback NAI Working Committee • Key issues identified include . • Some Committee members expressed frustration and concern that implementing a no significant adverse impact regulation will prohibit their ability to redevelop their property. • Some Committee members expressed concern about unintended consequences of revising the floodplain regulations . Public Outreach and Feedback Responsiveness to Council • Staff noted its commitment to delivering a workable Adverse Impact Review option to Council within the specified schedule . • The Adverse Impact Review approach presented by Staff (Criteria and Standards as well as the Review Process ) incorporates input from the NAI Working Committee , Boards and Citizen groups . F� [tins Adverse Impact Review (AIR) Criteria and Standards The standards are divided into two (2 ) categories : • Floodplain development submittals that meet prescriptive criteria and do not have a potential adverse impact on other properties ( i . e . remodels , landscaping that does not involve fill , breakaway fences ) . • Floodplain development submittals that require an Adverse Impact Review (AIR) . [tins Adverse Impact Review (AIR) Criteria and Standards Adverse Impact Review can be addressed through . 1 . Review Hearing Determination 2 . Administrative Determination F�t [tins Adverse Impact Review (AIR) Criteria and Standards Review Hearing Determination Standards a . Human life and safety. The proposed development must not result in a net increase in risk to human life and safety, considering the overall and net effect of the development proposed : i . Dryland access must be retained or provided . ii . Emergency warning and evacuation plans must be prepared if the development results in new or additional persons occupying or present in the floodplain . b. Any structure or addition must be designed to withstand flood forces and the force of flood-driven debris , and to not generate debris, city of Fort Collins Adverse Impact Review (AIR) Criteria and Standards Review Hearing Determination Standards c. Flood damage-resistant materials are required below the regulatory flood elevation . d . Any structure or addition must be elevated or floodproofed . e . The proposed development must not result in an increase in base flood elevation on any existing structure. If the proposed development would result in an increase in base flood elevation on any off-site location (where no structures are affected ), the applicant must obtain formal consent in the form of an easement or other recorded documents sufficient to obligate all affected persons with respect to the adverse impacts . C; Of FL t Collins f� 1 Adverse Impact Review (AIR) Criteria and Standards Review Hearing Determination Standards f. If the proposed development would result in an increase in flood velocities on any off-site location , the applicant must obtain formal consent in the form of an easement or other recorded documents to obligate all affected persons with respect to the adverse impacts. g . Changes to a floodway boundary require formal consent in the form of an easement or other recorded documents to obligate all affected persons with respect to the adverse impacts . h . The proposed development must be located and designed so as to prevent damage from foreseeable natural erosion of the channel bed and banks . City of ins Adverse Impact Review (AIR) Criteria and Standards Review Hearing Determination Standards i . Increases in erosion potential on -site or a decrease in channel stability on -site requires mitigation adequate to prevent damage from such conditions . j . Off-site increases in erosion potential or a decrease in channel stability requires mitigation adequate to prevent damage from such conditions and to prevent aggravation or migration of such conditions. k. The proposed development must not result in floatable materials that are prohibited and must not increase the potential for materials that are not within the definition of floatable materials but that could generate debris or become debris . Uins C;tyof FL tf� Adverse Impact Review (AIR) Criteria and Standards Review Hearing Determination Standards I . The proposed development must be located and designed so as to prevent damage from flood flows that could result from blockages and damming that is reasonably foreseeable from vehicles , equipment, trees , or other items or materials that would be carried by flood flows . m . The proposed development must be consistent with Stormwater Master Plan documents . The Review Hearing provides an opportunity for potentially-impacted property owners and citizens to voice concerns over flood related issues . *44 1:0rtf� Adverse Impact Review (AIR) Criteria and Standards Administrative Determination Standards The same standards and criteria apply as for the Review Hearing Determination with the following exceptions : a . Human life and safety. The proposed development must not result in new or additional persons occupying or present in the floodplain . b. The proposed development must not result in an increase in base flood elevation on any off-site location or on any structure . FCiii t Adverse Impact Review (AIR) Criteria and Standards Administrative Determination Standards c. The proposed development must not result in an increase in flood velocities on any off-site location . d . The proposed development must not result in any change to a floodway The Administrative review provides a streamlined process for those submittals that do not have off-site adverse impacts or additional life-safety risks to proceed without a review hearing . Adverse Impact Review (AIR) Review Process • The Review Process will depend on the nature of the floodplain review submittal . • Tabular listing of Review Categories is in Attachment 2 . • A flowchart outlining the Review Process is in Attachment 4. The Review process works in conjunction with the existing review process for CLOMRs, LOMRs , issuing of a floodplain use permit, and any required as-built certifications . FL tf� �F Review Process Depending on Type of Development Adverse Impact Review Basic Review Administrative Review or Hearing New Non-Residential structures in flood fringe Remodels Non-Residential Additions in flood fringe Substantial Improvements — no increase in footprint Non-Residential Redevelopment in flood fringe. Fencing designed to be break-away or allow passage of water through a flap or opening. Detention ponds that do involve fill and are not entirely within Detention ponds that do not involve fill and are entirely within the floodway or flood fringe (i.e. would not change the the floodway or flood fringe (i.e. would not change the floodplain lines) floodplain lines) Hard surface paths, trails and walkways that involve fill and Hard surface paths, trails and walkways that do not involve fill change the floodway or floodplain lines. and do not change the floodway or floodplain lines. Reconstruction of substantially damaged structure due to Reconstruction of substantially damaged structure due to cause flooding in flood fringe other than flooding in flood fringe Break-away pedestrian bridges involving fill (including Break-away pedestrian bridges involving no fill (including abutments, etc.) abutments). Landscaping that involves fill or would change roughness values. Landscaping that does not involve fill or cause an increase in roughness values. Fill New attached garages in the flood fringe. Excavation that would change the floodway or floodplain lines, New accessory structures — detached garages, sheds, etc. — in the change BEE or velocities flood fringe Outdoor storage of materials that are not defined as floatable Change of Use materials. (Floatable materials are prohibited). Driveways and Parking Areas that involve fill or change the Driveways and Parking Areas that do not involve fill and do not floodway or floodplain lines. change the floodway or floodplain lines. Floodway Modification LOMR or PMR 14 �F Adverse Impact Review CONCEPTUAL EXAMPLE 15 • • • •r xS 2 MU 1(51a0.97 Exw r Assets of �E F(in OM•v I 5 My 14 � %5 130 M 1.0 Adverse Impact Review Conceptual Example Adverse Impact Review Administrative Determination Costs a. Human life + safety design $0 (no new employees) b. Dryland access design $500 c. Emergency evac. plan $500 to $1,000 d. Stmctural analysis $1,000 to $2,000 e. Flood resistant materials design $0 (already washable) f. Elevat on / Floodproofing design $1,000 g. BFE impact (ineffective flow analysis) $2,000 to $4,000 Is h. Flood velocity mitigation $0 (ineffective flow) i. Floodway boundaries $0 (not in floodway) j. Natural erosion prevention $0 (site is paved) k. On-site erosion prevention SO (site is paved) 1. Off-site erosion prevention $0 (site is paved) m. Debris prevention (car containment) $1,000 n. Blockage mitigation $0 (ineffective flow) o. Stormwater roastemlan $ 0 (required in dev. rev. process) Total of above Items = $6,000 to $9,500 For • - construction costs - • at 1 1 1 1 The additional costs to ensure the project does not adversely impact other properties is in the ran • of 1 1 to $ 11 , 000, an increase of . 1 ' 16 Poudre River Flood Risk Cross Section - Norm College Avenue and East Vine Drive N NAM - fj sm . • A* 4. ..rwt.).w � IOM Etkcw vnr Sate �OPM E.w.�YM, S./tn O1p•vN FFcw�V/tr bwe t'- .,o StMn IFt) 1 • • 1 I • Adverse Impact Review Administrative Determination Costs a. Human life + safety design $1,000 to $2,000 b. Dryland access design $500 c. Emergency evac. plan $500 to $1,000 d. Structural analysis $8,000 to $125000 e. Flood resistant materials design $0 (washable) f. Elevation / Floodproofmg design $55000 g. BFE impact (limited hydraulic analysis) $4,000 to $6,500 It. Flood velocity mitigation $0 i. Floodway boundaries $0 j. Natural erosion prevention $0 (site is paved) k. On-site erosion prevention $0 (site is paved) 1. Off-site erosion prevention $0 (site is paved) m. Debris prevention (car containment) $4,000 n. Blockage mitigation $0 (bydr analysis) o. StormwaterStormwater maste�lan $ 0 (required in dev. rev. row$ 0 (required in dev. rev. row Total of above Items = $23,000 to $319000 For • - the EPS - . market value is $ 18,233,000. impactThe additional costs to ensure the project does not adversely other properties is in the rangeof 111 to $44,000 , an increase of 1 to 1 17 General Direction / Specific Questions 1 . Does Council feel that sufficient outreach and analysis has been provided to fully understand the criteria and process associated with the Adverse Impact Review option ( Option #4 as redefined ) ? 2 . Does Council desire specific revisions to the Adverse Impact Review option ? Fit,fly General Direction / Specific Questions 3 . Does Council have sufficient information to make an informed decision regarding the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations ? Ift .M1111126F t��s Poudre River Floodplain Regulations Potential Revisions QUESTIONS / FEEDBACK [tins �t�1