The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 09/03/2002 - SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 119, 2002, AMENDIN AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 32 DATE: September 3, 2002 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL FROM Jim Hibbard/Bob Smith Marsha Hilmes-Robinson SUBJECT : Second Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 2002, Amending Chapter 10 of the City Code Concerning Floatable Materials in the Poudre River Floodplain. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In June of 2000, City Council adopted new floodplain restrictions for the Poudre River. One of those restrictions, outlined in Section 10-61(6) of the City Code, deals with floatable materials. As that Section currently stands, non-residential properties in the Poudre River floodplain, floodway and product corridor on which floatable materials were located prior to July 1, 2000, were allowed to continue storing floatable materials until the earlier of July 1, 2002, or any change in use, construction of a new building, or the addition to or substantial improvement of an existing structure on the property, before compliance with restriction was mandatory. Ordinance No. 119, 2002, which was adopted 4-3, on August 20, 2002, eliminates the July 1, 2002 deadline for compliance that was previously imposed. In addition the City Code was amended to clarify that any substantial change in the quantity, type, or character of floatable materials on an affected property which causes an increased risk of flood damage would the trigger the obligation to comply. I i AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 35 DATE: August 20, 2002 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL Jim Hibbard/Bob Smith STAFF azsha Hilmes-Robinson SUBJECT: First Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 2002, Amending Chapter 10 of the City Code Concerning Floatable Materials in the Poudre River Floodplain. RECOMMENDATION: IL Staff recommends adoption Option oft inance First Reading; the Water Board recommends adoption of Optio the an n First ing. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial impact will be different depending on the option (Option A or Option B) that is adopted by Council. The Staff Option (Option A) would result in relaxation of this floodplain regulation and will lessen the f ' 1 b o p owners that otherwise would have been required to spen one t cle p hei pr or in some cases find a new location for their business ause th entir u s is r ted to floatable materials. The Water Board Option (Option 1 ancial ' act of cleaning up the existing floatable materials on their site. The Water Board Option (Option B) would not create any additional financial impact beyond what is in the current Code language. Neither Option would have a direct financial impact on the City. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In June of 2000, City Council adopted new floodplain restrictions for the Poudre River. One of those restrictions, outlined in Section 10-61 6) of the City Code, deals with floatable materials. As that Section currently s ds, no eside ertie n the Poudre River floodplain, floodway and product corrid n w i floa 1 aterials re located prior to July 1, 2000, were allowed to continue storing oatab a matert s until a earlier of July 1, 2002, or any change in use, construction of a new building, or the addition to or substantial improvement of an existing structure on the property, before compliance with restriction was mandatory. This Ordinance presents two alternatives for modifying this provision to reduce the burden of compliance on affected businesses. The first alternative (Option A) eliminates the absolute deadline previously imposed and the second alternative (Option B) extends it from July 1, 2002, to July 1, 2005. An additional change is proposed that is included in both of the options discussed above. This change would clarify that a substantial change in the quantity, type, or character of floatable materials on an affected property which causes an increased risk of flood damage triggers the obligation to comply. DATE: ITEM NUMBER: i ,BACKGROUND: In June of 2000, City Council adopted new floodplain restrictions for the Poudre River. One of those restrictions, outlined in Section 10-61(6) of the City Code, deals with floatable materials. Floatable materials are defined as: I Any material on a nonresidential property that is not secured in place or completely enclosed in a structure, so that it could float off site during the occurrence of a flood and potentially cause harm to downstream property owners, or that could cause blockage of a culvert, bridge or other drainage facility. This includes, with limit m i q ent, trash dumpsters, tires, drums, or other ontai piec m I, c, or any other item or material likely to float This provision set a date of July 1, 2002, by which all affected property owners were required to have all existing floatable materials removed from the Poudre River 100-year floodplain, floodway and product corridor. In the Fall of 2001, staff began an assessment of the impact of the floatable materials restriction. The assessment report that was prepared is attached as Attachment 1. Based on that assessment, staff prepared a recommendation to eliminate the date by which existing floatable materials were required to be removed. This recommendation was presented to the City's Water Board in March 2002. The Water Board recommended a different option for changing the floatabl a erial estriVY ns (Option A and Option B) are presented for Council co rdera o I Properties Affected by the F tab ter' s The floatable materials restriction only applies to non-residential properties in the Poudre River i100-year floodplain, floodway and product corridor. Based on a field reconnaissance in November 2001 and review of 1999 aerial photographs, there are 28 properties that have a significant amount of floatable materials, 8 properties that have some floatable materials, and 81 properties that have minimal or no floatable materials. Sixteen of these properties have material in the product corridor. There are several properties o Y to be storage of floatable materials. These properties Jude c and c g companies, and junkyards. Enforcement of the current re 'ction uld b 1 recluisting use from continuing on these properties and consequen oul ire a bto move to another location. As a consequence of the restriction, at least four businesses would probably be required to relocate to another location. Other properties that have a fairly large volume of floatable materials located on them would be required to make a substantial change in operation (find a place to store a high volume of materials inside an existing building, construct a new building to store the materials, or stop storing materials on the site). The degree of financial and logistical hardship associated with making these changes would vary from property to property. DATE: August ITEM NUMBER: 35 Proposed City Code Changes: 1. Eliminate or Extend the Set Date for Compliance Floatable materials are a threat during flooding. However, the requirement that all existing floatable materials be removed from the Poudre River floodplain, floodway, and product corridor by July 1, 2002, will likely have a serious financial and logistical impact on a number of businesses, thus creating a hardship for those property owners. Therefore, the following options are available for Council's consideration: • Staff Option (Opt, C' d r ve the requirement that all- existing floatable ateria s e re v pr t 1, 2002. This change would eliminate the spe is date whi tstmg flo able materials would have to be removed. The req t ms beco plicable only in the event of a change in use, construction of a new building, or construction of an addition or substantial improvement to an existing structure on the property, and at that time storage of floatable materials would no longer be permitted on the site. Staff prefers this option for achieving the long-term goal of removing floatable materials from the floodplain, floodway, and product corridor while balancing the rights of the property owners. Over time, this approach would result in the gradual removal of floatable a ials m t ood in, odway, and product corridor. There have been vera cess to s p ,es that had a change to the property and the isting at s we removed. Generally, it is less disruptive and bur so ad ss a floatab materials issue at the time of a change to the property than to require compliance by a specified date. This also makes this restriction consistent with other parts of the floodplain provisions of the City Code that trigger a property protection measure at the time of a change to the property rather than upon a fixed date. • Water Board Option (Option B) - The board recommended extending the deadline for removal of floatable materials from July 1, 2002 to July 1, 2005, giving property owners three more years to clean up their property. The board was concerned about the increased flooCa e aY It and believes there should be a deadline for r m. 2. Clarify the Effect oan h in tit Type, or Character of Floatable Material Stored on the Property. Staff is also recommending that Section 10-61(6) be changed to clarify that a substantial change in the quantity, type, or character of floatable materials on an affected property which causes an increased risk of flood damage also triggers the requirement that the existing floatable materials on a property be removed. This is included in both options discussed above. DATE: August Zu, zuuz 4 ITEM NUMBER: 35 Outreach Activities: Boards and Commissions In addition to the Water Board, staff reviewed the floatable materials issue with the Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB). The majority of the NRAB members recommended extending the deadline to clean up existing floatable materials an additional eight years, thus requiring all existing materials to be removed from the floodplain, floodway and product corridor by 2010. The majority of the NRAB felt this was would'be enough time for existing properties to find solutions to the floatable materials issue. Other members of the NRAB felt the Water Board's recommendatio UOF Property Owners In May 2002, a mailing was sent to all non-residential property owners and renters in the Poudre River floodplain, floodway and product corridor. This mailing included a letter, a sheet of frequently asked questions, and a comment form (Attachment 2). This packet of information explained the floatable materials issue, the staff and Water Board recommendations for changing the regulation, and request for feedback. Attached is a summary of the feedback that was received via the comment forms (Attachment 3). Staff also conducted several site visits and held meetings with groups of property owners. Property owners voiced concern over the need for the restriction and felt if the restrict as n od' ' ma us sses would have to go out of business. Some stated a co m th t e re is n a th r property of no value. Also, concern was expressed that s s for rel ation d bu esses are not available under the current Land Use Code. Additional Outreach JL In addition to the direct mailing to the property owners and renters, a press release (Attachment 4) was distributed and information was posted on the City's website (Attachment 5). The comment form was available on the web site for anyone to fill out. A log of phone calls was kept, including any comments regarding the proposed changes (Attachment 6). A presentation was also made to the Chamber of Commerce on August 16, 2002. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Assessment ort OPY Attachment 2 -Mailing Inform Attachment 3 - Summary of Feedback via the Comment Forms Attachment 4 - Press Release Attachment 5 -Web Site Information Attachment 6 - Log of Phone Calls and Comments Attachment 7 -Letter from Otten, Johnson, Robinson, Neff&Ragonetti representing affected property owners Attachment 8 - Excerpt from March 28, 2002 Water Board minutes