Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 09/03/2003MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE AVENUE September 3, 2003 For Reference: Randy Fischer, NRAB Chair - 226-5383 Eric Hamrick, Council Liaison - 225-2343 John Stokes, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Nate Donovan, Arvind Panjabi, Linda Knowlton, Randy Fischer, Clint Skutchan, Ryan Staychock Board Members Absent Sam Otero, Kelly Ohlson, Phil Murphy Staff Present Natural Resources Dept: John Stokes, Terry Klahn, Mark Sears, Rick Bachand, Rachel Steeves, Matt Parker Engineering: Cam McNair, Matt Baker Real Estate: Ralph Campano, Wally Cameron, Patricia Dennison Utilities: Jim Hibbard, Mark Taylor Guests Amy Hunsicker, CSU Natalie Dickinson, TST Don Taranto, TST Agenda Review Randy Fischer suggested moving the Land Transaction agenda item to after New Business. Review and Approval of Minutes The minutes of the August 6, 2003 NRAB meeting were unanimously approved as written. Timberline Road Extension, Cam McNair McNair said this project is the reconstruction of Timberline from Carpenter to Trilby. We've done environmental assessments and worked closely with NRD staff. The first phase is already constructed. It's going to be the same mitigation plan approved for all of the way through. It's no different than what we talked about originally, we're going to do the amount of mitigation required for the disturbance being done. Natural Resources Advisory Board September 3, 2003 Page 2 of 6 • Donovan: If there will be two disturbances, what is the schedule for the 2Id. . • Toronto: It's not scheduled. • Donovan: Are we talking about temporary casements for construction and an easement along the roadway? • Toronto: Yes. • McNair: It's our problem. It's a transportation funding issue. We wanted to do it all at one time so we don't have to come again, and impact the public with another road closure. We just don't have the funds. It could be a number of years before this part of Timberline gets to a point where we need to make the improvements. • Knowlton: Your document says 3-5 years. • McNair: That's a guess, it could even be longer. • Panjabi: So the portion of the road you're working on will be raised to accommodate the box culvert? • McNair: That's correct. It's a fairly smooth transition. I don't think it will be a traffic problem at all. • Panjabi: The mitigation will be carried from start to finish? • Toronto: Yes, totally finished, including plantings. • McNair: It's a good plan, and good approach. I wish we could do it all. • Panjabi: Is the time frame the same as what you originally proposed? It goes through April? • Toronto: The only reason its in April is the paving. It's dependent on the winter weather we have. There is an opportunity for all of this to get completed before April. If the weather is good, we'll get it done. • Panjabi: This area receives a lot of winter use for birds. I thought we were going to limit the window to a time where it didn't have a large impact on the migratory birds. • Toronto: We're using the months the environmentalist suggested, October through March. They are the least impacted. I think that 90% of our efforts will be completed before the end of the year. • McNair: These are our problems, there are areas with higher priorities. • Panjabi: I'm glad to see it. I did not believe there was a need to expand the road and bike lane for the sake of themselves. It's a safe road. I agree there are other priorities. • Donovan: So, the wetland disturbance is less than an acre now, but it will be 2.7 acres later? • Toronto: Yes. • Fischer: How come the width of the highway changes at the quarter section line? • Toronto: It's not the road, it the right of way. They had to deed what they thought was the future right of way. • Fischer: Is there any reason why you couldn't go forward with the full scale mitigation, other than cost? • Toronto: We cant put back more wetland than what we take out, because of water rights issues. We're absolutely relegated to putting back exactly the same as what we're taking out. • Fischer: My concern is if we wait another 3-5 years„ the scope of the project and width of the road bed will change. I believe there are already changes to the Master Street Plan. In five years we could have all kinds of different things proposed for this Natural Resources Advisory Board September 3, 2003 Page 3 of 6 roadway. I predict by the time this comes back to us again it will look different, and we may have to start all over again. • McNair: It's hard to predict how these things will go over time. You could be right. We're holding to our master plan for the foreseeable future. • Panjabi: With regard to the master planning do you take in account environmental sensitivities, and try to avoid major routes through our more sensitive and most valued natural areas? • McNair: It's a political process so it's a factor. The Master Street Plan deals with arterial level streets. Typically we aren't looking at building new roads across new areas that don't already have transportation. Those considerations are taken into account. • Fischer: I notice we didn't get easement language. • Stokes: We're still in the process of crafting the legal description, it's not ready yet. • McNair: We've picked up the CFP easement language. We're using it as a template. A lot of the mitigation efforts were covered in other easements that you've had. It might be possible to reference those, and not make it quite so long. • Sears: That's the approach being used. • McNair: It's become clear from the City attorney's office that the City can't grant easements to itself so they create alignments. It's the same thing as easement, just a different name. Linda Knowlton made the following motion: Move that the Natural Resources Advisory Board recommend to Council to approve a permanent slope alignment and temporary construction easement for Phase I of the Timberline stormwater and waterline project. The motion was seconded by Nate Donovan and unanimously approved. • Panjabi: I would like to voice my concerns that the expansion of this road is going to lead to a degradation of the habitat quality of this site, the most significant natural area in Fort Collins as a stop over for migratory birds, and others. I hope we don't see this road being turned into a further expansion to use as a major arterial road. I hope that in the transportation planning we try to avoid that scenario. It will lead to conflict, and degradation of one of the biggest environmental treasures of this community. I hope that the Transportation Department would realize that, and avoid those potential impacts to this area in the future. I hope more consideration is given to the qualities that will be lost. There is a big difference in big roads and small roads. There are impediments to wildlife crossing roads and mortality due to collisions. I voted against this in the beginning, but would vote for this easement because it is the minimum necessary. • Fischer: This whole project has been a model of cooperation and compromise on both parts. Hopefully we can maintain that level of cooperation and compromise. Hopefully we will have the opportunity to directly affect how the master street plan will get drawn. Natural Resources Advisory Board September 3, 2003 Page 4 of 6 Natural Areas Master Plan, Mark Sears Sears said that Chapter 3 is a work in progress. We want to have it final to take to Council on October 28th for their review. It' going to be modified right up until the 28`h, based on input we receive from you and other boards, as well as citizen input. • Donovan: On page 15 make sure where it talks about the 5% for transportation projects that it's clear that it's up to 5%. It's not set at 5%. • Stokes: As a result of staff discussion and an issue raised by Randy in his comments the overall name of the document has been changed. We're considering changing the name of the program, that is an ongoing conversation and it hasn't concluded. I'm wanting to talk to Randy and see if we can get on the agenda for an upcoming board meeting. • Panjabi: Does the Natural Area Program adopt the name? • Stokes: There are different recommendations. We're open to brainstorming. We will come forward with a handful of suggestions and talk it through. • Skutchan: It's a major change. Need to make sure people don't think it's two different programs. • Stokes: We'll have to go through a marketing assessment. • Fischer: Something missing in this document is the phrase, "in partnership with other entities". There might be people in favor of partnering with other entities in ag land, but not be in favor of the City of Fort Collins being out there. • Fischer: What's the purpose of these questions? Why ask these questions? What do you hope to get out of it? • Sears: We hope to get the answers. We know as a staff what our goal and vision is. We can only conjecture what the citizens voted on reagarding the regional work. We think we know, but we can't look at Council and say this is what the citizens of Fort Collins want. • Donovan: I have a major concern about that. People attending the open house and going to the web site are not a representative sample of the citizens of Fort Collins who voted on the ballot issue. • Donovan: In Larimer County they did a scientific valid survey. I'm very concerned bout this being used internally among staff, or being presented to Council. It's an ok tool to use, taken for what it is. But it's dangerous for it to be held up to other efforts, like what the County did. • Sears: We'll report to Council the results of the county survey. Because the County did such a thorough survey we didn't feel like we needed to repeat it. This is the same process the City of Fort Collins uses on all types of planning process. It's rare that we do a formal survey. • Fischer: You need to rethink this. It's a big mistake for several reasons. We have adopted the Community Separator plan. They've gone through their own survey. We know the City of Fort Collins wants separation. Are you prepared to go back to Council and redo the whole Community Separator planning that has been done? All of this stuff, at least 1 A, 1 B, and 1 C are adopted City policies that have gone through multiple avenues of public input. I don't understand what you hope to gain by opening this can of worms. It's not a scientifically valid survey. Skutchan: I don't understand how you'll get any objectivity. You'll get reaffirmation, or backlash from sour grapes. Natural Resources Advisory Board September 3, 2003 Page 5 of 6 • Knowlton: You don't need to do this. You have a vote of the people. There's lots of language in the ballot. • Sears: We already presented all of that to Council, and they directed us to get public input on the focus area map. • Knowlton: Ok, but don't ask questions about the things already decided, like the separator study. • Stokes: The purpose of the open house should be to get into the meat of Chapter 3. We need to rethink the questions, or ask different questions. In the open house we want the public to respond to the focus area map. We know it's not scientific, but the Council did ask us to go back and go through public process. • Knowlton: If the Council wants public input, I would tell them you're going to get statistically valid input, similar to what the County did. Otherwise it's not worth doing. • Panjabi: The question you need to ask the public is what are the priorities. • Stokes: I hesitate to say we want to do a full blown survey. We'd have to spend $15,000 to $20,000. The idea of an open house is a reasonable tool we use a lot in trying to develop consensus. • Donovan: Yes, we do open houses all of the time, but I haven't been to one where they've collected anything other than comments. • Skutchan: I agree. If I went to an open house and saw the same questions I've been asked for 2-1/2 to 3 years I probably wouldn't show up to another open house. • Fischer: I'd say go ahead and do the open house, and ask questions about what folks priorities are. • Stokes: Did anyone go to the County open house? I wonder how they ran them. • Fischer: It depends on which ones you went to. Some were heavily attended by the property rights folks. They're not fans of land conservation. They ended up harming the County's program by allowing a small group to dominate the discussions. You're opening the door to doing the same thing. • Stokes: We're looking at facilitating small group discussions, breaking off into small groups organized by topic. • Panjabi: That's dangerous. hi a survey like this people will use whatever angle they might be able to project. The questions need to be worded to not undermine the basic tenets of the program. • Knowlton: Use the open house as a way to present this plan to the public, and what you plan to do based on the Open Space Yes Vote. • Skutchan: I value criticism, including those vehement against the program. It's especially important they be able to offer their criticism. I like the idea of the open house in more than just a loose format. • Staychock: You need to get the working groups together. Get people engaged in coming and talking, get constructive criticism. Do what you can to engage them. • Campano: What was the direction from Council? • Sears: It was very vague. Get more public input on the land conservation approach • Campno: Don't give disagree as an option, just have the people rank them. • Fischer: I think the direction of Chapter 3 is a good one. Natural Resources Advisory Board September 3, 2003 Page 6 of 6 Comments regarding Chapter 3 can be sent to Mark Sears, John Stokes or Terry Klahn. Sears will return to the board on September 17 for further review of Chapter 3. New Business • Fischer: Last week there was a suggestion that we have a joint meeting with the Parks & Recreation Board. The P&R Board is rescheduling their September meeting to fall on October 1. What prompted this is when I read the P&R Board minutes. It made me realize the P&R Board and the NRAB are on the same page as far as direction with land conservation. There's a lot of room for improvement in communication. I would like to hear more directly their concerns. They were throwing out a lot of concerns we could have addressed, discussed and answered. We can discuss the natural areas policy, and have the opportunity to have a joint discussion of the City Plan update. • Fischer: I sent out an email on mosquito spraying in natural areas and wondered if the board was interested in taking action. I was voicing my own personal concerns. We have invested a lot of money into natural areas. The environmental damage by the spraying outweighs the health concerns. I would suggest that we get Council to direct the City Manager to voice a complaint to the County. • Punjabi: I was upset about it. It's pointless, ineffective and inappropriate. • Knowlton: It's a matter of who you believe. I've read as much as I can, and have decided that I don't have a problem with it. • Skutchan: I would lean toward that as well. Although, I do think the timing should have been earlier. • Staychock: You're advised to go inside and close all of your windows and doors. If there are all of those precautions required, there's something to be concerned about. • Fischer: There is a lot of misinformation. There are toxic chemicals people shouldn't be exposed to. Are we really in a health emergency? Randy Fischer encouraged everyone with strong feelings to contact their council members and commissioners. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Submitted by Terry YJahn Admin Support Supervisor