Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 12/01/2004MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE December 1, 2004 For Reference: Nate Donovan, NRAB Chair - 472-1599 Eric Hamrick, Council Liaison - 225-2343 John Stokes, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Joann Thomas, Clint Skutchan, Linda Knowlton, Gerry Hart, Nate Donovan, Randy Fischer, Ryan Staychock, Rob Petterson, Glen Colton Board Members Absent None Staff Present Natural Resources Dent: Mark Sears, Terry Klahn, John Stokes Guests Anne Hutchinson, Chamber of Commerce Agenda Review Nate Donovan said he was hoping to have the re -draft of the Spring Canyon Park design, but it's not available yet. Public Comments None Approval of Minutes: The minutes of the November 3, 2004 we unanimously approved with the following correction: Page 3, P bullet from bottom, change to "every time a community park comes on line there is an automatic 5500,000 charge to the general fund for o/m." County Road 126 @ Meadow Springs Easement Steve Comstock said there's nothing unusual about this easement. Karen Manci has reviewed the easement. • Fischer: You touched on my only question, that is, what Weld County's plan for the land is. • Comstock: The specification is only for road purposes. Keith Meyer, Planning Director for Weld Co., has assured us of the same thing. • Hart: What's the purpose of the 100' right-of-way? Natural Resources Advisory Board December 1, 2004 Page 2of11 • Comstock: There's a small area of potential for wetland so they wanted a little more We have incorporated re -vegetation and a requirement they monitor it for five years. • Fischer: I'm curious, does Karen Manci's work get reimbursed out of Utilities? hi the past it wouldn't have mattered, now it's out of a dedicated fund? • Comstock: I know Karen, and that's why I called Karen. • Stokes: I'd like to note that there's a nexus because we're neighbors. We hope over time to work more closely with Utilities on issues that will be cross boundary management issues. I would like to develop that partnership. And, I appreciate that Utilities asked NRD to look at this road project. • Donovan: When was the last time the board took a field trip to Meadow Springs? There may be some new members who would like to go up. • Comstock: We'd be happy to do that. Bee -Webber Conservation Easements Sears briefly reviewed the details of the easements. He said this has been a good deal. It's nice to know the fee simple is going to someone whose use will be agriculture for a long time. One of our goals in this area is to try to find farmers whose plan is agriculture. The monitoring will be easy as long as its in ag use. Later, when ag is no longer viable it will be a challenge. • Staychock: Who is mostly in control? • Sears: We'll each hold 50% in the conservation easement. The County will do the monitoring. • Skutchan: Is there a criteria that CSU has? • Sears: Like anyone, they can sell the land. The conservation easement is strict, it must be agriculture. It can't be sub -divided. No housing is allowed, only structures that are ag related. • Sears: The conservation values are ag values, and community separator values. Our primary purpose is the community separator. The County's main purpose is agriculture. Linda Knowlton made the following motion: The NRAB recommends that City Council approve the Resolution authorizing the approval of the Transfer Agreement and the reimbursement payment to Larimer County in the amount of $281,720.00, to reimburse Larimer County for a 50% share of said Conservation Easements. The motion was seconded by Clint Skutchan. • Colton: I hope we get some publicity on this. It may get obliterated by the Red Mountain property. But, to a lot of people separators are as important as regional purchases. I'd like to see if there's a way we could highlight this. • Stokes: We'd like to publicize some of the acquisitions over the past six months, but we're waiting for a good moment. Natural Resources Advisory Board December 1, 2004 Page 3 of 11 Knowlton: I've become concerned about the Timnath separator. Timnath is getting very aggressive in terns of expansion. To me, that is just as important as Red Mountain. • Stokes: That is a concern. We are actually quite close to a second easement. We've made a lot of progress, and we've done a lot of ground work. I'm assuming we'll move forward with the implementation of our plan. Meetings will occur over the next several weeks. In the meantime, our direction has been clear to proceed with our work. The motion passed unanimously. CDOT - I-25 Bridge Mark Sears said he sent an apology to all of the board regarding the field trip. CDOT was very unprepared. Randy sent an eloquent letter to CDOT, and I believed all of his comments were taken serious. I have no clue what they're going to say. I thought they would come back with a dramatically seeped back project, one that might stay in their right-of-way. • Hart: I thought it was a productive meeting. It seemed the people on the ground were listening. • Sears: Hopefully we'll not bring you as unprepared field trips in the future. • Sears: They've met as a staff and reviewed alternatives. The project that was presented in the field is the project they feel they need to go forward with. Rex can go over why they came to that conclusion. Cantrell reviewed several handouts he distributed to the board. • Cantrell: Due to the high rating of the bridge it would probably not have to be replaced with the widening of the corridor in the future. • Sears: This has come about in the last couple weeks. Normally we would bring a fairly complete packet, and ask for a recommendation to Council. We're not asking for a recommendation. We decided instead to ask for your informal recommendation. Is this something you could support? We also wanted to know what questions we need to provide answers for. Any feedback will be productive. • Donovan: Why is it not possible to channelize? • Sangaline: There's the cost, and the natural resources. • Ryan: You said that hopefully the sediment would move past the bridges. How certain are you? "Hopefully" is not an engineering term. • Sangaline: We didn't do geotechnical borings. The large cobbles will not move through. • Donovan: I have a concern about the idea of excavation and maintenance requirements. What's the difference between maintaining the weirs and going in every three years and excavating? • Sangaline: The weirs will help to move the sediment through. We're hoping eight to ten years with the weirs, without them its two to three years. • Fischer: What is the approximate size, in terms of acres? • Sangaline: The west side is about an acre, the east side 3-4 acres. • Cantrell: The total is right around four acres. Natural Resources Advisory Board December 1, 2004 Page 4 of 11 • Donovan: What other alternatives were considered? • Sangaline: We considered a couple different varieties of excavation. We also considered a drop structure. The DOW did not like that. They were very concerned about fish passage. It wasn't a significant amount of water surface elevation change to justify a drop structure. • Donovan: I don't know that we've seen cost estimates. Have you done them? • Sangaline: We're working on them for this scenario. Those will be ready for CDOT review the middle of next week. • Fischer: What are your plans for mitigating the loss of the trees? The last time you and I talked we discussed the idea of leaving large caliber trees on the islands to the east. • Sangaline: We can't achieve our 10-year event if we leave pockets. The other thing about leaving pockets is we cant say they'd be sustainable. We may lose the trees anyway. • Colton: I'm wondering if there is some of mitigation that could be done off -site. As a result of Fort Collins owning this it's keeping CDOT from having to rebuild the entire structure. Is there any provision for off site mitigation due to the fact that you're getting a lot of benefit? • Sangaline: We were at the point where we had started to talk about the mitigation plan. The higher ups at CDOT indicated it would take a pretty good coordination effort before they authorized that. It can go so many different ways. CDOT would want a lot of guidance. • Colton: More on the mitigation. If you can't put in enough trees, could you replant some along river, or cash in lieu of trees? • Cantrell: We would be open to that. • Staychock: What if it doesn't work? Wouldn't it make it worse? • Sangaline: The worse that could happen is it would look exactly as it does today. • Stokes: Staff needs to go back and think about this some more. What is your attitude on mitigation if this project went forward? I'm sure we've got plenty of wetland that could stand some level of restoration. It might be an opportunity to achieve some restoration objectives on our properties. I'm interested in your reaction. • Colton: Is there wildlife habitat? What are the natural features? • Fischer: It's quite an active area. I wasn't aware of the habitat value down there. You have 45 cottonwood trees over 15" in diameter. It takes 30 to 40 years to grow a tree that large. That isn't going to be easy to replace, and it wont be replaced overnight. My belief is you shouldn't count on mitigating lands that are already protected. That means buying land of equal value that isn't already protected. That's what I'd like to see as mitigation. They will grow back, but not in our lifetimes. I've never understood what's wrong with crack willow. Surely they offer habitat value. In a five acre parcel you're looking at a forest out there. • Stokes: That's the kind of feedback I'm looking for. • Skutchan: If you don't move through with this project, and then see damage, what would happen? • Sangaline: We'd reevaluate the structure for rating and do emergency excavation. Natural Resources Advisory Board December 1, 2004 Page 5 of 11 • Donovan: I would reserve judgment on what I think about the project. After staff takes a look we could take some action at the first meeting in January. My thought on the mitigation is to do what's appropriate on site, the do off site. Mitigation of large trees should be more than 1 to 1. The mitigation plan should take into account the maturity of the trees. • Staychock: I wish that CDOT would have had crews out there on the two to three year schedule. If the concern is safety they should have been out there. • Cantrell: I don't know the reason we haven't been out there. • Skutchan: I agree there should be as much mitigation on site as possible, and then look off site, and consider tree size for the mitigation. I would be comfortable with that. • Hart: I would like to ask staff to get with Rick, and maybe get Karen out there. We need to evaluate the viability of that habitat and see what we're losing, and what we need to replace it with. If we're going to replace the value of the land we need to do it with land we don't already own. Some kind of acquisition for similar value. My whole feeling is I'm yet to be convinced this is a necessary project. • Colton: Two things need to be figured out. First, are there any other alternatives, and secondly, if we do go with this plan, how much mitigation does there need to be? • Knowlton: I would need a lot more information from staff before I would be comfortable with this. I would like to know the conservation value of the whole area, what birds, and are there any nests. • Sears: Typically on a project with this impact its beyond what I'd want my staff to evaluate. This is the type of project we would require a complete environmental characterization study. Will you be ok with a generic staff answer? We'll spend a day or two in the office. • Skutchan: How far along are you? What would you have available? • Sangaline: We have a tree count, prebles mouse study and DOW guidance. • Skutchan: Is there more to come? • Sangaline: That's what CDOT is trying to decide, if they should spend the money. If this plan is out of the question they won't. • Fischer: I'd be willing to say this is not acceptable to me. I made comments in writing to one of the engineers who was on the field trip. In the field he seemed amenable to scaling this back and going about it in a periodic maintenance sort of thing. Later we're told the bridge is about forty to forty-five years old, and they have a design life of around 50 years or so. It's conceivable the bridge will have to be rebuilt in the near future. If you do a present worth analysis versus a 3-5 year maintenance schedule, keeping the bridges clear will probably be less then spending the $500,000 today. That's a guess, but it seems to me that might be another alternative. As to the value of the habitat, this 4 acres will basically be desert when this project is complete. It won't have any of the value for the reasons we bought the land. I don't see how it can be even close to the same habitat value. Unless we were to get a similar parcel somewhere else that would be a key piece in the riparian corridor, this wouldn't be acceptable. Maybe staff would have a different perspective. I could see that Rick was troubled by the idea of losing a lot of trees. Natural Resources Advisory Board December 1, 2004 Page 6 of 11 My reading of staff was that this is a big deal, not a little pipeline project. We're going to basically lose the value of this property. Stokes: If we were going to look for habitat that is similar it won't be easy to find. There's not a lot that hasn't been bought. It would be very hard to do. Red Mountain Ranch Conservation Easement Stokes said there has been an effort and vision to create an undeveloped connection across the northern part of the county. It's one of the last places on the developing front range where you could maintain a connection from the mountains to the high plains to the east. In May the City bought the Soapstone Ranch, and we started to work with GOCO to get a grant. Today we were awarded $11.6 million. A huge catalyst was the City's purchase of the Soapstone, and commitment from Fort Collins and citizens initiatives. We were willing to stick our necks out and develop a compelling vision. This is the biggest, by far, project in the state. It's really good news and I'm pretty excited. It's an honor and pleasure to have been here at the City and have this opportunity. The plan is for the County to buy Red Mountain on December 17. The County has done a great job working with GOCO. GOCO will require a third party to hold the conservation easement. When the City receives a donation it has to appropriate the value of the donation. We estimate the value of this conservation easement at about $2 million. We need an ordinance for the appropriation to occur. • Colton: What sort of conservation easement will be on the Ackerman property? • Stokes: We don't know yet. It will have to be negotiated. The County will be looking to trade value. • Colton: What are Cheyenne's intentions? • Stokes: It's unclear. We told them we would like to know more about that. It obviously has an impact on our management of this area. • Knowlton: I would almost rather see a private person own it so there wouldn't be access. • Stokes: It's TNC property. TNC is feeling caught between Larimer County, the City, and Cheyenne. Glen Colton made the following motion: Move that the Natural Resources Advisory Board recommends to Council that the City accept the donation of the Red Mountain Ranch conservation easement from Larimer County. The motion was seconded by Randy Fischer and passed unanimously. General Management Guidelines Stokes said we were asked by Council to review and update the plan. We were asked to consult the Parks Department, and the P&R Board. We went to the P&R Board and asked for feedback. There are a handful of issues that we perceive that we might want to newly address in the guidelines. Feedback from P&R was very limited. We had a nice conversation about the way we're managing properties now and recreation opportunities that might be available. They asked about a couple uses, model airplanes, rocketry, firing Natural Resources Advisory Board December 1, 2004 Page 7 of 11 range, and some other uses they'd be interested in seeing. I indicated that maybe someday we'll have a community separator where something might be appropriate. They appreciated that as a gesture of good will. They feel like working with Craig Foreman to acquire and develop a new dog park would be a good thing. We told them the new kinds of uses we're considering on new regional properties are camping, hunting, picnic shelters and potentially bouldering and/or rock climbing. They said it sounds interesting and would like to see guidelines. It would be good to get some reaction about those potential new uses. • Skutchan: Something that's been on my mind is some sort of mountain bike park that would be family friendly. Something closer to town, to lessen the impact of people being where they shouldn't be. I think its something that could fund itself. • Stokes: That's something the Parks Department might do. • Skutchan: I think you'd do the Natural Areas program a favor to look at a concept like this, and work with Parks. • Colton: We need to think of the future economy of Fort Collins. As we do get more natural areas, folks might come to Fort Collins as a destination. • Stokes: There will be many more miles of mountain bike trails available to the public. When Devil's Backbone is connected to Lory, it will be about fifteen or sixteen miles. Mountain biking does have an impact on resources, in particular the trails which require more maintenance. We're kicking that around. On the Bobcat Ridge management plan we're wondering how to design trails that are sustainable and fiscally prudent. It's a major issue for natural resource managers all over the country. Mountain biking is a relatively new use, and something we'll have to deal with. • Fischer: The P&R Board had a lot of ideas about recreation opportunities, and most of them I don't have a problem with. The key thing for me is who is going to pay for it? Some things are going to take significantly more management and monitoring. For example, a dog park takes 3 to 4 times the amount of maintenance than a regular natural area. Is the idea that Parks will take over maintenance? Would the rangers be expected to be out there? I think we are going to have to start looking at the o/m dollars pretty closely. • Sears: If we're successful in the acquisition of a dog park the natural areas participation would be the acquisition of the site. Parks would pay for the development and ongoing maintenance. It's a gray area. My staff says it should be a Parks project but right now we're getting a lot of pressure to have a natural area that allows dogs. My fear is someday the pendulum would swing, I'm afraid Council might say, use Pineridge. We need to be proactive. FIDOS has been very supportive of this project. We've been working on it for three years. Where I see opportunities are the community separators. Stokes: They seem receptive to that. The point that Randy makes about the maintenance costs is important. It also pertains to new uses that we might want to manage on larger regional properties, such as hunting. There's a management cost to that. We're going to have to think carefully about those fiscal impacts to our program. Colton: If we have more intense uses, they need to be self -funding. It goes beyond what was originally envisioned. Natural Resources Advisory Board December 1, 2004 Page 8 of 11 • Stokes: There are ways to manage that are pretty conservative. Maybe we'll have a couple we experiment with and see how it works out. • Staychock: Mark mentioned that future councils will be able to implement policies that will steer natural areas in a different direction. Are any institutions in place to protect them into perpetuity? • Sears: Land purchased with natural area funds can only be used within that definition. Something as subtle as dogs off leash and dogs on leash could fit well in the plan. Right now we exclude it in our guidelines, but I could see council making an exception in a location and still fit the natural areas definition. • Sears: In a few locations GOCO requires us to place a conservation easement on top of our properties. • Staychock: Maybe we can entertain a discussion to make sure natural areas are conserved into perpetuity? Seventy-five years from now, when this looks like the east cost, there may be pressure. Maybe we can be visionary and add another protective layer. • Sears: The level of protection that will have security at all is education and appreciation, and if we can keep our community educated to the values of a natural area. We need to get them to love them so much it's a cardinal sin to think of selling or absolving them. That's the only protection. A conservation easement is only good until it goes to court and it's reversed. The money would have to go back into the natural areas fund, unless the community actually turns that over. • Colton: A lot of outdoorsy groups are pretty conservative groups. I don't know what we need to provide as a City. I think we overbuilt the viewing area on Fossil Creek lake. There's a certain segment of the population that will use it, but a lot who won't. • Skutchan: There's a liability aspect to bouldering and rock climbing. How is that handled? • Stokes: I'm not qualified to answer that. • Knowlton: My daughter says that Colorado has some of the strictest protections for land owners. Basically its at your own risk. That's because of the skiing industry. • Fischer: My thoughts on hunting are I feel like I can't go into the National Forest for any kind of outdoor recreation during hunting season. I've been told by hunters that I shouldn't be there. They're probably right. It seems like we need to provide some place for recreational users in the fall where there isn't hunting. So much of the other public lands are open to hunting. The hunters don't like the recreational users. It's not that I'm anti -hunting. The natural areas program could provide a good place for people to recreate in the fall while the national forest lands are being used by the hunting public. • Fischer: I'm thoroughly disquieted by the way the rock climbing public has gone. They think nothing of trashing areas out. I used to be a big rock climber. We need to be careful about the areas we want to allow rock climbing and designate the least sensitive. • Stokes: We don't have too many areas that are good for climbing. We wont be a premier climbing destination. Natural Resources Advisory Board December 1, 2004 Page 9 of 11 • Colton: Would we get to the point where we would lease lands to people who would run it, so its not such a burden to us? • Stokes: I hadn't thought about that. One of our management guidelines has to do with leasing for agricultural uses. It's a possibility. There's nothing that prohibits that. • Skutchan: What about bird hunting, ducks and geese, in the community separators? Is there something on the books about that? • Stokes: In the community separators we'll own the development rights. The people who own the fee simple can still lease it out for hunting. • Donovan: We'll have to expand our ideas on recreation. • Stokes: I'm not sure when we plan to come back to this board with this. We'll go back, tinker with this, and give you a redline copy. • Colton: Separators are where we might have different recreation opportunities. • Stokes: Those are retained uses by the underlying fee owner. We will own the development rights. That's their business. • Staychock: Any recreational uses are appropriate as long as they don't impede the goals and objectives of the natural areas management. I advocate appropriate recreational opportunities until these goals are impeded on. • Stokes: That's the overarching mission of the program. Spring Canyon Park Design • Donovan: We weren't able to get a copy of the new design. It was in the council packets two weeks ago. • Fischer: I have a copy of it. They have done what Council directed them to do. Donovan requested staff obtain the plan and mail it to the board. NRAB Role in Development Review Donovan said Council will consider the options on December 21. Do we want to do a follow up to our memo recommending modified Option 4. Do we want to consider having an alternative of giving the NRAB standing to advise P&Z and Council on specific development proposals? • Fischer: It's been long enough. We should reiterate our position. • Donovan: Without mentioning specifics? • Knowlton: Our position is consistent with the Zucker report recommendation. We need to keep pointing that out. • Hart: Our interest is in getting involved early in the process, and not to retard the process. We don't want to hold it up. • Skutchan: The only option I support is null. • Staychock: I don't think we're all sold on this. I've been a skeptic from the beginning. • Petterson: There seems to be confusion in the press. A reassertion of our position should be clear. • Colton: We don't have decision making authority. We don't intend to get involved in a large number of proposals. We're trying to get a better product earlier. Natural Resources Advisory Board December 1, 2004 Page 10 of 11 • Fischer: What power does it give us? No power. Do we have power as a board? That's not why I spend my time here. My main reason is to save applicants time and frustration later on when projects get appealed, or there are big delays when they're trying to work out protection for the environment. • Donovan: I'll work something up and send it out. • Donovan: Do you think it's an appropriate role for this board. • Hart: I think its appropriate. • Petterson: I agree. • Knowlton: I agree. • Staychock: I have reservations. It goes to a meeting six months ago put on by the City Managers Office, with attorneys there.. In that presentation there were boards and commissions who are quasi-judicial. I can't feel another layer is appropriate. The hold up is we don't have the option to go to P&Z and give our comments. Even as individuals? • Donovan: Could you support giving us the opportunity to advise P&Z without another layer of detail? • Staychock: Not if it's going to create of tidal wave and there's no support. I see it as the only things we'll say are negative things. Not if it can't be constructive. • Fischer: Who says we cant be constructive? • Staychock: What projects are we going to see? The ones chosen to be in front of the board. I don't feel like battling the development community. hi reality what we do want are good conservation outcomes, not knee jerk reactions. I would support it if there were support for it. • Colton: I support it. • Thomas: It makes sense to be involved up front as opposed to after. I do think we would take the responsibility very seriously, and not impede progress. All of the bad publicity we have gotten recently has made me angry. We should write a letter and reaffirm who we are and what we want. • Skutchan: I don't want Nate representing my opinion. • Knowlton: It's a 7/2 vote. • Donovan: I question how much verbiage to use. Should we say anything about what the views of the two who don't support this are? • Skutchan: I don't want it to be a blanket statement. • Donovan: It wont be unanimous. • Colton: Say it was 7/2 vote. If they want to include a minority statement they can. • Donovan: I had thought about drafting something in response to the column. • Knowlton: The press has been feeding on this. Doug Hutchinson portrayed this as something we thought up and lobbied for. Neither of them say the Zucker report recommends we have this ability. That's what we need to make clear to the public. We didn't dream this up, Zucker did. The development community is behind the Zucker report. They City is behind the Zucker report. • Hart: If the Zucker report hadn't come up we wouldn't be having this discussion. • Fischer: Yes, we would. It was brought up by the City Attorney several months ahead of the Zucker report. The Zucker report was not the first instance. Natural Resources Advisory Board December 1, 2004 Page 11 of 11 • Donovan: Council had directed him to come up with something. • Fischer: I'm in favor of it. • Donovan: Yes, with the caveat this needs to have a serious review after a period of time. • Skutchan: I'd like to state my reasons for opposition. The process in place is appropriate. Philosophically I don't believe it's a change of government that needs to happen. Maybe if went beyond this board it would be different. It reflects poorly on us if we're the only board involved in the development review process. There are conflicting aspects to the Zucker report. • Colton: This has been blown way out of proportion. The issues the development community is raising are not valid. It's become a power struggle. They're saying these guys are anti -growth and are getting in to muck up the process. That's how it's being sold. If there's a way to say we're not anti -growth ... it's ridiculous. • Knowlton: The Zucker recommendation said that our review should not hold up the review process, it specifically said that. I don't want to hold up the review process, no one here does. • Staychock: There's not much enthusiasm on the part of staff. If the question is should we have a role, the answer is, but that's only because everyone should have a role. Council Six Month Planning Calendar Donovan reviewed the calendar. Staff will get a response to him regarding the Air Quality Conformity item scheduled for December 14. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Submitted by Terry Klahn Admin Support Supervisor