Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParks And Recreation Board - Minutes - 10/27/2004PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting October 27, 2004 215 North Mason Community Room 5:30 p.m. 495-1 Call Meeting to Order: President Jessica MacMillan called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. Agenda Review: No changes. Items of Note: None Citizen Participation: There were several citizens in the audience requesting time. Jessica informed the audience that the Board would allow 20 minutes of citizen participation. She explained that during this citizen participation, the audience can make comments, but cannot make comments or interact during the regular meeting. Anita Wright — Anita said that she was very pleased with the progress that has been made at Spring Canyon Community Park, and recognized that the expectations of citizens have been difficult to work through. She went to the Council meeting last night and felt there were a lot of good comments. She felt the main issue at Council was the location of the dog park. She also said that Council felt that moving the dog park from its current design location would satisfy most of the concerns that would come up. Anita feels that the next step is to move the dog park to the recreation building site, as she does not see a need for a recreation center. She feels this will reduce the parking issues as well. Overall, she thinks a fairly reasonable compromise has been reached. Emily Hammond — Wanted to say thank you. She knows it's been a tough spot for the Board, but does appreciate their willingness to work with the citizens. Approval of Minutes: On a motion by Greg Miller, seconded by Mary Carlson, the Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the September 29, 2004 meeting. Recreation Endowment Presentation Jean Helburg, Recreation Manager of the City's Recreation Division gave a PowerPoint presentation regarding a program they have developed called Building Community. This program is part of an outreach effort to educate citizens about what Recreation has to offer, and to get people more engaged in recreation through the City. The ultimate goal is to develop supporters/advocates for the Recreation programs to help find ways to financially support those Parks and Recreation Board Minutes October 27, 2004 Page 2 programs that don't bring enough revenue to support themselves, but that are vital to many citizens who don't have the financial resources to pay. Jean announced that in January they will begin holding monthly outreach sessions that last approximately one hour. She also invited the Board to an awareness -raising event on November 10u. Del asked who their target audience was. Jean said they began their meetings with people they knew in order to get a feel for the types of questions and feedback they would receive, but eventually they want to expand to groups that participate in the programs. Jessica suggested meeting with church groups, day cares and schools. Jean said they have not pursued that yet, but plan to. They will also have a slide show on Channel 27, go to some service clubs, and that they are meeting with the parents of one of their pre-school classes in the next week. Marty felt it was an interesting campaign because typically the City tries to get donations from foundations that are interested in Parks and Recreation, but this approach is a grass roots fundraising effort that might reveal some new sources that have not yet been utilized. Marty thanked Jean and her staff for the effort they are putting into this area, as there is normally not a lot of money to be found for recreation programs through normal fundraising means. He hopes we can build a new constituent base. Natural Areas Management Guidelines and Management Plans for Fossil Creek Natural Areas Natural Areas Management Guidelines John Stokes, the Natural Resources Director spoke to the Board about the Natural Areas Management Guidelines. John started by thanking Craig, Marty, Roger and the design team for the incredible job they did in front of council last night. He also said that the design team worked very closely with his staff to accommodate Natural Areas' interests and needs, and he thinks they have done a terrific job. He said that the Council requested that he review the Guidelines with both the P&R Board and the Natural Resources Board. He feels it is a good time to review them since they are acquiring new and larger properties, and those properties will have new levels of activities. John said the mission of the Natural Areas Program is to conserve the natural resources of the properties that they acquire, and to provide recreation, education and interpretation activities on those properties. He added that the Guidelines are intended to reflect that core mission. He also said that unlike Parks, they are not managing for as many multiple uses, so it helps keeps their costs down, and lets them be true to their mission. John noted that they have recently acquired quite a bit of new property. The Bobcat Ridge property at 2,600 acres, the Soapstone Ranch at 12,500 acres, 4,000 acres of adjacent State land, and if they are successful in their cooperative venture with the County and the Nature Conservancy, they would acquire an adjoining 5,000 to 6,000 acres. This would give them over 20,000 acres of land that they would co -manage with the County. These new lands would be available for all kinds of recreational uses, ranging from mountain biking, horseback riding, hiking, camping and hunting. Parks and Recreation Board Minutes October 27, 2004 Page 3 John mentioned that the last two items, camping and hunting in natural areas, is currently prohibited by municipal code, so they would like to look at changing that guideline. He added that they would like to put in some backcountry camping sites at Bobcat Ridge but that they were still working around some constraints such as water access. He also said that camping is a new activity for them to manage, but they would like to consider it as a possibility by modifying the guidelines and the code. The other controversial issue is hunting because of the associated safety and management issues. Needed discussion would revolve around whether there would be a need for armed rangers, and do the citizens of Fort Collins really want that kind of activity on their property. He added that they have had a lot of interest from the hunting community, and it is a sustainable activity that could be conducted on the properties, so he feels it is something they should consider from a recreational point of view, and from a vegetation management point of view. John said they would like to tie any of the activities back into ecological management. The Division of Wildlife has already approached them and said they think Natural Areas needs to manage elk on the Soapstone properties. He feels they need to explore that question for themselves, and that it needs to be brought to the public for dialogue. John thought a third activity that they might want to consider is rock climbing. They are not sure if they have suitable rock formations, but they will be looking at that, especially on the Bobcat Ridge property. They also will be looking at bouldering. John added that he was trying to paint a management picture for the Board where they have these large pieces of property, they can do more things, and they are outside the city limits so there are not the same constraints. Ann asked if camping would be on a permit system. John said yes, they would propose it as permit only, but they want to get feedback from the public first. He hopes they will eventually have an on -site manager at the Bobcat Ridge site. Jon Sinclair inquired about competitive running events. John said that they don't typically encourage those events in natural areas but they could be looked at. Jon asked if John saw the management plan paralleling Lori State Park. He added that at Lori State Park they could hold running events, and that they raised money for the park to improve their trails. He felt Bobcat Ridge could offer a similar venue for trail running that could be a benefit. John responded that he thought it would be valuable to talk to the running group about their experiences at Lori State Park because he is not familiar with it, and added that this was exactly the kind of feedback they were looking for. Mark said that as they get into this type of management they would be looking at higher O& M costs, so he felt they needed to look at what the impact will be to the O&M budget. John responded that they would definitely want to think through whether they wanted to have different levels of use on different properties because of the O&M costs. For example, they might want more intensive use on Bobcat because it's closer to town, and easier for people to get to; whereas Soapstone is more remote and a sensitive area. This would make their costs lighter at Soapstone. John added that they would be addressing those issues; what they will be providing to the public, and how much it will cost. He said that they are obviously calibrating what their costs are going to be in terms of managing the properties, because they would be going up. They went from managing 11,000 acres at the beginning of this year, to managing 33,000 acres. Parks and Recreation Board Minutes October 27, 2004 Page 4 John said that as they look forward at our Land Conservation Master Plan they are focusing on community separators that will be primarily conserved by conservation easements, which would keep costs low. They are just acquiring the development rights, so they do not have active management on those properties. He added that it does help them financially that they do not have the management costs that parks do because they manage for a different intensity of use on the natural areas. Lance asked about their restoration costs. He thought they must be increasing with the new acquisitions, and asked if they were providing a higher percentage of money to restore the new areas. John said that the good news about places like Bobcat and Soapstone is that they don't need as much restoration as places in town. For example, Soapstone will need little to no restoration, and Bobcat only needs minimal restoration. He said they have the option of deciding how much they want to restore. He added that their restoration costs in town were high, but fortunately, the way Open Space YES is written, restoration costs are included as a land conservation activity, so it's an area of flexibility. John also said that they have a robust budget for restoration if they need it, but that right now they were doing a lot of restoration in and around town. He gave an example of the NIX Farms site along the Poudre River. There is a field there that was used to deposit lime when the sugar beet industry was here, and it is all lime. Their restoration ecologist created some test plots with different native grass species and amended soil. Now that it's raining again, they are finally seeing results; native plants are coming up under the weeds. They are mowing the areas that still have heavy weeds, and they have treated over 2,000 acres of land this year for weed management purposes. They also beefed up the crews this year. John said one of the complaints we get most frequently is that they don't do enough to treat non-native plants in natural areas, so they have really tried to pay attention to that. He thinks they are getting better at it and really starting to see results. Lance asked about community separators. He felt the land is not really natural in very many aspects, and wondered if those lands would then have opportunity for recreation that had not been described before, like kite flying, etc. John said that their intention is to acquire conservation easements primarily, but that there will be situations where they will own fee land that they can sell with an easement on it, or keep it. If they keep it, they can provide some of the recreational activities that are non-traditional. He feels that they may need to create a process for creating exceptions on a case by case basis on community separator properties that will be suitable for other activities such as launching model rockets, hot air balloons, Frisbees, etc. John said they would need to rewrite the Guidelines to reflect that approach. Del said he would like to see them leave options open, in the wording of the documents, for alternative activities. John added that they would be reluctant to change the Guidelines in areas where there is high natural value or potentially high natural value where there would be interest in restoration. Del added that there was no place to launch model rockets. Marty agreed and explained that rockets were not allowed in parks because of safety and noise issues and how those issues impact other park users. John said that they would definitely keep those issues in mind, and it would go through the public planning process to make sure the neighbors are okay with it. He also added that they were still working with Craig on acquiring property for the dog park on the north end of town. Parks and Recreation Board Minutes October 27, 2004 Page 5 Mark asked about a possible shooting range because there is not one in Larimer County any longer. John felt shooting ranges don't really fit into their mission, because it's a purely recreational activity, but did realize that there is nowhere to shoot right now. Del asked why there were no agreements with Parks & Recreation to manage a shooting facility on some sites, because there were many areas that were suitable if done as a cooperative agreement with Parks. John said part of their mission is to promote quietude and peacefulness and that shooting was very intrusive. He didn't think that people would view it as a compatible activity in natural areas. He felt they could put it out there for the public to consider. Del asked if they would be closing some public areas during migration seasons. John felt that was an appropriate strategy. He gave an example of elk calving in the northwest corner of Soapstone. They would like to close that seasonally while they are calving, and open it again when they are done. He also mentioned that at Bobcat they are considering making the east side a guided area because not only is it a sensitive area, but there is a ditch that runs through the middle of the property. They feel it is a safety hazard, and their only other choice would be to fence it off. He added that it is an issue they will bring forward for discussion when they have the plan up for review. He added that the first public outreach for Bobcat is a week from Wednesday night. John invited the Board to attend and offered to send a schedule by e-mail. He also said they would have several trips to the areas planned. He said there would be lots of opportunities for people to weigh in on issues. Del asked how they lay out the design of the trails. John said they have a preliminary trail layout at Bobcat Ridge that is pretty extensive. They are currently giving hikers a survey that asks what they liked about the site, what they would like to see, what kind of activities they would like to engage in, and where they would like trails to go. This has given them some pretty good feedback, and they will continue to get feedback from public meetings. He went on to say that trail building has become a complicated process. He said they have miles and miles to build on both pieces of property, and it's going to be expensive. The challenge is to make them attractive, usable, and durable, in order to handle all of the new uses. Now they have horses, bikes, people, llamas and mules on the trails. This varied use creates an issue of hardening the trail surfaces, especially because of mountain bikes. John said that mountain bikes do a lot of damage under the right circumstances, so they have to design the trails to a different standard. They are thinking about providing separate trails at Bobcat, one for hikers and one for mountain bikes. We would hope this would prevent some of the user conflicts that they see at parks like Devils Backbone. Their ranger said that the biggest conflict they have is between bike users and hikers. They had over a i/a million visitors last year. So with that kind of intensity of use you get in to some infrastructure questions. John said that another item he wanted to bring to the Board's attention is leasing the properties for agricultural uses. It's something they have done a little bit of in the past, but now that they own bigger properties it is going to be a more fundamental issue to address. Soapstone ranch has been grazed for over 100 years, and it is a big place with the grassland ecosystem. It has co - evolved with fire and grazing, so he thinks it is appropriate to have grazing there. He added that this is a new concept that they haven't had to deal with before, so how they manage the grazing and visitor use are new issues they will have to deal with. There is the same issue at Bobcat Ridge where they have a smaller grazing operation. Parks and Recreation Board Minutes October 27, 2004 Page 6 Mark offered that it seems like the whole Natural Areas Department has gone through quite a transition from managing hundreds of acres to thousands of acres of multi -use lands. He does not feel they can stop the grazing, and thinks they should look at their mission statement, as it might have been incorporated 20-30 years ago. He believes that they could incorporate grazing, rock climbing, shooting ranges, and bike trails. John responded that he also feels they are going through a transition, and evaluating use is part of that. He added that their core mission is still conservation of the natural resources, and he feels that is the bedrock of their program, and that is what the citizens who created the program believed in. He acknowledged that they do have some new realities to manage. Lance said he liked the earlier discussion on the potential of doing more at Bobcat vs. Soapstone based on the O&M issues. He doesn't want us to find out in 20 years that we have thousands of acres of land and no funding source. He feels it is important to make decisions based on those types of issues, and have a long-range O&M strategy in place. John said that it is also a use strategy. He said the forest service has areas they call sacrifice zones, where you can ride your ATV and shoot your gun. He said that they would have different intensities of use on their properties, not only managing the resources on the ground, but also managing the fiscal resources. He feels they are fortunate in that they have a lot of flexibility going forward because they have a good revenue stream to take care of their properties. He said it is a big responsibility to plan the growth of your program within budget and sustainability constraints. Mark commented on separating the bike trails from the hiking trails. He feels it might be better to have one lane, otherwise you will have bike users jumping on hiking trails, and the associated repair costs. John agreed and said they would be bringing some plans to the outreach meetings. Jon said it may be okay to say that you are going to close whole area to bikes. Maybe Soapstone would be more appropriate to biking, than Bobcat Ridge. John said right now they tentatively have a loop trail for the mountain bikers and then we have hikers in a bigger area. But that's just purely conceptual at this point. The mountain biking community is a pretty active community. The Board had no more questions for John regarding the Management plans. Fossil Creek Natural Areas Management Plan Edith Felche, Senior Environmental Planner for Natural Areas spoke to the Board about the Fossil Creek Natural Areas Management Plan. She identified the following nine goals: 1. Protect, enhance, re-establish, and maintain ecological characteristics of each site. 2. Provide appropriate recreational opportunities in a manner that minimizes wildlife disturbance and site fragmentation. 3. Protect, enhance, and maintain habitat for wildlife typical to each site, recognizing that, in the urban environment, there are certain management constraints. 4. Provide wildlife viewing opportunities. 5. Preserve scenic values. 6. Provide the resources to help citizens understand the natural values of the sites. Protect cultural, archaeological, and unique geological features. Parks and Recreation Board Minutes October 27, 2004 Page 7 8. Protect, to the extent possible, Fossil Creek and Mail Creek's ability to maintain their natural characteristics, recognizing that certain unavoidable constraints exist in the urban area. 9. Provide education and assistance to help natural area neighbors resolve conflicts associated with the natural area/private property interface. She also mentioned that there are several opportunities to review the management plan, including two open houses: Wednesday, November 10, 4 - 7 p.m., Downtown Library Ben Delatour Room; and Monday, November 15, 4 - 7 p.m., Redeemer Lutheran Church, 7755 Greenstone Trail (south off Carpenter Road, just west of Timberline). She added that it was also available on-line: fcgov.com/naturalareas. Board members received copies of all of the information to be reviewed, along with comment sheets. Edith also mentioned that she would like to have the Boards comments, and asked them to return the comment sheets by December 1. Edith said that approximately 10,000 residents live within about % mile of one of the fossil creek natural areas so they are looking at what resources are available on the sites, and then determining what recreational activities can occur without damaging those resources. One example of a popular recreational use in all of the natural areas was bird watching. John added that the Fossil Creek Reservoir property was perfect for handicapped users, the elderly, bird watching and seasonal closures. Jessica asked about the number of parking spaces. John responded that they would have 50-60. Craig explained that he looked at all of these natural areas to determine if alternative recreation, like ballooning, dog parks, disc golf etc would be appropriate. Craig determined that these areas have sensitive and valuable natural resources that preclude these types of alternative recreation activities. Spring Canyon Park Craig and Marty discussed the Council's response to the Spring Canyon Park plan. Marty stated that he and Craig presented the Board's final plan to Council and that it was a go until a few days ago. The Council then began receiving feedback from the neighborhoods regarding the dog park location and the parking spaces on the north side. Marty added that the majority of Council approved the changes to move the dog park from the area northwest of the ballfields to the area shown on the Master Plan as the site of the future recreation center. They also approved moving the 40 parking spaces needed for the dog park from the north side to the south side of the site. The Board then discussed Council's feedback, the changes Council suggested, the impact of those changes on the different neighborhoods, and their own view of the changes. They all agreed that the neighbors on the south side will be upset when they see that the parking has been moved to the south, and discussed getting further input from them. Roger was confident that a new design could be made that incorporated the new changes. The Board also discussed sending a memo to Council explaining that the design went through and extensive public process and was determined by them to be appropriate, balanced and fair to all neighbors. Greg moved that the Board submit a written statement to the Council reflecting their concerns and that Marty write the statement based on their discussion and submit it to Jessica for approval. Parks and Recreation Board Minutes October 27, 2004 Page 8 It was seconded by Lance, and all Board members were in favor. (A copy of the memo is attached) Future Development Plans for Northeast Parks Craig reviewed a map with the Board, showing future development plans for the northeast parks. He explained the current situation with land controlled by Anheiser Busch, pointed out the property owned by the City that will be used for parks, and the time frame for the development of each of the parks. Craig also discussed the difficulty of locating and purchasing parkland in the northeast section of town. He then opened it up for discussion for questions from the Board. Mary asked about the recent trend of partnering with the school system. Craig responded that it has been a recent trend to have parks next to schools because we share in the use and maintenance of them. Mark felt that high -density and affordable housing had strong needs for nice parks and that we should focus our energy on those areas. Marty reiterated Craig's response that the City has exceeded what they would normally spend in the area, but that there would be open land that would augment the parks. Marty then added that we also needed to balance the density and impact fees, and could not switch our system on a social basis, as the cost is too high. Craig also added that there would be open spaces owned by the homeowner's associations that the homeowners could use. Project Updates Northside Center Cleanup Marty reported that there was not much news in this area. He said they were still in negotiations on the Administrative Order, but that they were beginning to mobilize the cleanup efforts in order to get it done before the river rises in the spring. He said to expect the Administrative Order on Consent to be signed soon. Craig added that they are installing the relocated water line that is replacing the original line that was too close to the bank. This line belongs to Weld County. Marty stated that we have extra costs for the construction of the recreation center associated with the ventilation system and the disposal of the contaminated material but this should be covered in the Order. He added that they would be shutting the trail down next week. Rossborough Park Craig sent flyers to neighborhood requesting feedback on the parking and restroom situation. They received more than 30 responses saying that the restroom was needed, with mixed reviews about the added parking area. Craig is going to re-evaluate the parking situation. Trails Bids just came back to take out the asphalt on the Poudre Trail from Taft Hill to Shields and the section by Link `N Greens to Mulberry (1 3/4 mile). The estimated cost per the bids is $400,000 which is a very good price. Fossil Creek Trail Just completed the area east of College Avenue by Fossil Creek Parkway. They are working on the underpass at 287 and Fossil Creek. It is about a $300,000 project. Craig described the trail route. Parks and Recreation Board Minutes October 27, 2004 Page 9 YAC The gym construction is going well; it's within budget and ahead of schedule. The walls are up, the roof is on, and they are finishing the high windows; this makes it weatherproofed so they can start the inside work. We are still $95,000 short from what we need. Drahota Construction has been good to work with. The gym should be completed shortly after the first of the year. 2005 Work Plan Marty will need to present the 2005 Work Plan to the City Clerk before the end of November. The primary topic is the update of Parks and Recreation policy plan that is now 9 years old; it was originally adopted in 1996. In addition, topics will be: ✓ Spring Canyon Park design and construction ✓ Acquisition, trail development, new park development will be limited ✓ Finish up Building Community Choices ✓ BCC money for more regional trails ✓ Community parks improvements — parking and sidewalk improvements ✓ Basic items to Council; provide more grants to trails, input on park designs, maintenance costs, etc. ✓ Opening of YAC gym ✓ Council review of development schedule for our parks to discuss funding for the parks ✓ Integrating on and off street trail system / transportation is taking lead ✓ New partnerships for youth and recreation ✓ Parks and Recreation Fees ✓ Neighborhood parks ✓ Iron Horse Park might go to design ✓ final phase of Stewart Case Park will be under way ✓ upgrades to Heide Kooper Park will be under way ✓ Oak Street Plaza is being completely redesigned ✓ Review management plans for both neighborhood parks and community parks ✓ If we are successful with the Building on Basics campaign we might get money to do City Park improvements ✓ Many trail items ✓ Continuing involvement with Natural resources issues ✓ Dog park on the north part of town ✓ Recreation opportunities on open land Marty offered to add any other items the Board was interested in and to feel free to e-mail them to him. Lance moved to approve the Work Plan, and Mary seconded. All other members agreed. Next meeting is Nov/Dec meeting on Dec Wh' Parks and Recreation Board Minutes October 27, 2004 Page 10 Other Business None Correspondence None Adjournment: Greg moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Mary seconded. The Board unanimously agreed to adjourn at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kelly Moore Administrative Support Supervisor Board Attendance Board Members: Mary Carlson, Lance Freeman, Dean Hoag, Ann Hunt, Mark Lueker, Jessica MacMillan, Greg Miller, Del Price and Jon Sinclair Staff: Marty Heffernan, Jean Helburg, John Stokes, Craig Foreman, Edith Felche, and Kelly Moore Guests: Anita Wright, Emily Hammond. Several other guests were present but did not sign the guest register. IliIakNQ:7:610103I DT: October 29, 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of City Council FR: The Parks and Recreation Board RE: Design Master Plan for Spring Canyon Park The Parks and Recreation Board, at our meeting on October 27`h, discussed the changes to the Sprin� Canyon Park Master Plan supported by a majority of the Council at the October 26` study session. The Board has been actively engaged in the park design and in the extensive public involvement process. We have listened to the concerns and ideas of hundreds of citizens regarding nearly every aspect of the park design. This has been a very fair process, which allowed everyone interested to effectively participate, and it resulted in an excellent design depicted on the Master Plan. The Board strongly believes the Master Plan design reviewed by the Council at the study session is fair and balanced. The design ensures that park neighbors, on all sides, are not unfairly impacted by traffic, parking, or park activities. Safety and ease of access for emergency vehicles were also a concern of the surrounding neighborhoods, particularly at the South end of the park. These issues were not addressed at the Oct. 261h study session, but were voiced quite strongly by residents in that area at more than one board meeting during citizen participation. The Board worked very hard to achieve equal balance while creating a unique park that provides a great mix of recreational opportunities for the community. We would also like to emphasize that this is a park, not a natural area, and as such we have a mandate to provide needed recreational opportunities for all community residents. In our opinion, Spring Canyon Park presents a very well balanced compromise of recreation and respect for wildlife and nature unique to the site. The Board does not support the changes to the Master Plan approved by a majority of the Council at the study session. The Board believes these changes upset the balance the Board worked so hard to achieve, particularly after listening to the voices of all the neighbors in the immediate area. We also believe we have respected the integrity of the natural areas to the west of the park, and made sure there were sufficient buffers to provide for the free movement of wildlife in the area. While we are very confident BHA Design will come up with a new plan, which will be quite nice, we do not feel it will be the optimum plan particularly with respect to the riparian areas. The Parks and Recreation Board strongly urges the Council to support the process we undertook to provide our best recommendation and support the Master Plan as we have submitted. Very Respectfully,