Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 11/03/2004MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE November 3, 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: John Stokes, Terry Klahn Real Estate Services: Wally Cameron Agenda Review Linda Knowlton would like an update on Council's discussion regarding board's roles in the development review process. Guests Rich Dvorak, TST, Inc. Consulting Engineers Audrey Mendelsberg, TST, Inc. Consulting Engineers Chuck Pieper, Redeemer Lutheran Church Approval of Minutes: The minutes of the October 6, 2004, NRAB meeting were unanimously approved as written. The minutes of the October 20, 2004, NRAB meeting were unanimously approved as written. Redeemer Lutheran Church Easement Request, Wally Cameron Rick Dvorak provided background information and details about the proposed project. • Fischer: I'm a little confused. Currently you have a retention pond designed to store twice the 100- year runoff from the property. Whey do you need drainage? • Dvorak: The City of Fort Collins criteria does not allow retention ponds in the city limits. The property is in the county currently. The County said as a short term solution they would agree to the retention pond. For the long term, they'd like to see a detention pond. • Fischer: Why did you do the retention? • Dvorak: We had a short time frame. We needed the building permit for the church. The short term solution was to build a retention pond. • Fischer: From a drainage standpoint it seems unusual that you can just create a drainage way onto someone's property and let it go. The normal thing for an easement would be to follow the road right- of-way. You normally wouldn't just discharge water on the upland area without an easement. Were there other alternatives considered? • Dvorak: Exactly, that's how we had it originally, until I met with Rick in the field. • Fischer: Is there any way to bring the runoff south across the property line? • Dvorak: Not really, because of the railroad. • Thomas: What is the difference between retention and detention? • Dvorak: Retention holds the water on the site. Natural Resources Advisory Board November 3, 2004 Page 2 of 7 • Colton: How do you arrive at the compensation? How does that compare with a private owner, or a railroad? • Cameron: We use the easement standards and rules that are adopted by the City and the Natural Areas Program. We come up with a market value estimate. • Colton :Do you have any idea how much the rail road right-of-way is? Would the same methodology be used? • Cameron: If it were going through a private owner, who said I don't want you to do it, the appraisal would be similar to this. • Colton: And, it's the same thing with the railroad? • Cameron: The railroad is a different animal. • Staychock: Did you show this to Rick? What are his thoughts? • Dvorak: We went through Rick initially. He had us go back to storm drainage and Katie to make sure they were also comfortable with it. • Staychock: So, it will work? It will feed the current wetland with more water. • Fischer: Are you planning to use rip -rap? • Dvorak: It will be all natural. • Fischer: What are the maintenance requirements? • Dvorak: The church has agreed to take care of it. • Fischer: What does this easement give them? Do they have permission to take a back -hoe in there? • Cameron: Everything is with written permission, in consultation with natural areas staff. • Fischer: Do you anticipate actual flow all of the time? Is there flow in there now? • Dvorak: No, just when it rains. • Skutchan: Are there any expectations, or projections that the rain flow would create standing water? • Dvorak: Probably never, except in a major 100 year event. • Skutchan: Isn't this fairly alkaline? Did you say this has been run by Transportation? • Donovan: Wouldn't normally these easements be obtained in the processing of development approval? It looks like a positive situation, but what if a property owner was not able to obtain the easements? • Dvorak: Normally, you have to obtain the easement from Public Health and Safety. If there's a drainage area that has existed the downstream landowner can not block it. Rob Petterson made the following motion: Move that the NRAB recommends that city Council pass an Ordinance granting permanent and temporary easements to the applicant as specified herein for the consideration of Five Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Four Dollars ($5,384.00). The motion was seconded by Jerry Hart. • Fischer: Clint made a good point, have you sized the culverts so you won't create a flood hazard? • Colton: Since it's a County project, and the City didn't collect any fees, are we taking into account the staff time spent on this? The $5000 probably doesn't come anywhere close to compensating the City. • Dvorak: We did pay a $132,000 street oversizing fee. The motion passed unanimously. Natural Resources General Fund Budget Review, John Stokes Stokes said that a couple meetings ago we talked about the NRD budget relating to the general fund side. This is distinct from the funding for natural areas. We went through each years budget, back to 2001. The variation is a couple percent a year. The variations relate to grants and carry over monies. Some years we have grants, some years we don't. There has also been a tradition of carrying over. First, we're spending our money. And secondly, as the City revenue situation has gotten tighter we have less ability to carry over. The new budget cycle starts next year for 2006/2007. Our budget is established for next year. We'll prepare recommendations in the spring for our budget going forward. Board members in the past have expressed concern about Climate Wise, and that Sandy Hicks was working on soft money. By re jiggering that position it will now be funded with hard money in 2005. Natural Resources Advisory Board November 3, 2004 Page 3 of 7 • Petterson: These numbers, in terms of the total budget, include grants and carry over. Do you have anything without that? • Stokes: It's pretty flat. The more instructive number to look at is personal services. That's our staffing. Sometimes we incur salary savings, and sometimes we could use that for projects. Now they come and get those salary savings. • Colton: When you say personal services, is that just talking about people. What do you mean when you say "re jiggering"? • Stoees: Zoe Shark is currently half time in Clean Air and half time in Natural Areas. She will move to full time education in Natural Areas. Of the stuff she does now, some of those grants will be expiring. Also, some of the work is administrative and will be folded into the admin positions. • Donovan: Does Zoe work on smoking? • Stokes: We did contribute $10,000 to Rick Kopp for code enforcement. • Donovan: Does the admim support work match up pretty well with the 50150 split? • Stokes: Yes. • Staychock: Is there any staff member that works with the economic outreach group that the City has implemented? • Stokes: Yes, in fact we submitted a soapbox article today. • Stokes: This spring I would like to ramp up the P2 program We'll have two new planners. We're focusing on auto body shops, and next year maybe dentist shops. The water quality people are excited about that. The initial approach is to focus on sectors. If the program gets to be successful and really takes off, then we may have a crunch in terms of staffing. We'll need another six months to begin to understand that. • Stokes: There is one area that staff has talked about, it's the Green Building Program. It's a complicated issue. We'll have to bring in P&Z and Utilities. In Portland, they have an Office of Sustainability. It's a pretty robust program • Petterson: If it will take six months to a year before you have a good sense if the P2 program will require more staff, how will that jive with the budget cycle? It is worth while to anticipate success and ask for the money up front? • Stokes: That's a good question. We haven't begun to talk about that budget cycle, or if we're going to make any new requests to Council. It goes through an internal vetting process as well. There's competition internally. My sense is its going to be an interesting spring. If the sales tax initiative passes there will be selective cutting of programs, budgets and people. Asking for additional money for staff is difficult. We usually start in April/May. • Fischer: I've made this suggestion before and everyone laughed at me. The NRD should consider moving to be a department in the Utilities. For some of the examples you just gave, energy conservation, and managing mercury from dentist offices. That should be part of the pre-treatment program. The expertise you and your staff have would dove -tail nicely. A little town like Loveland can have an environmental fee, about $3 per household per month, to fund environmental programs. They're able to do tremendous things, and our staff is struggling. We should have a solid waste utility and be able to manage our solid waste stream. We should move away from the general fund to an enterprise fund. The sky is the limit. General fund dollars are not going to get any less scarce. The competition is there. The increases in salaries and benefits eat up any increase in sales tax revenues that are projected out. Every time a community park comes on line there's an automatic $500,000 a year from the general fund for operation/maintenance. I don't see this department prospering and doing the things we want to do. Natural Resources is the low man on the totem pole in terms of budget. I really think it should be considered. • Stokes: Boulder has a fee they charge as well. It allowed them to fund the PACE program. Boulder County does a lot of the work for the City. The City gives money to the County to run a lot of what PACE is doing. The other thing that fee does is tie into trash/waste diversion. There's a lot of money for recycling and waste diversion projects. It even runs a surplus. That's an example of how a small fee can generate serious bucks. • Stokes: We're trying to be more intentional with our relationship with Utilities. We've got a good relationship with the companies, and we're trying to incorporate that. There's a lot of untapped Natural Resources Advisory Board November 3, 2004 Page 4 of 7 potential in terms of a cooperative working relationship with Utilities. They like to work with us. We've shown we can establish good relationships with businesses. For me, talking with Utilities about co -funding positions is a learning curve. I still don't know everything Utilities does in an environmental realm. It's an interesting culture thing. The new city manager is key to honoring the idea of one organization, integrating operations so there are not redundancies and leveraging our resources. • Colton: Sounds like an interesting idea that could show a payback to the community. There are good things out there. If there was someone to work with homeowners and HOA's that would be good. Is that something you could staff? • Stokes: In Portland they districted their trash hauling about a decade ago. They had fifty different companies when they districted. They got every single company a district. Now there are about 30 haulers. They have to haul about 150 miles, and the tipping fee is about $70/ton. That's an incredible built in incentive to divert waste. • Colton: It would be interesting to see what services you have and which ones you see as primary versus secondary. Which ones are variable with increases in population and business, and which ones are fixed. The police say we need so many per so many thousand people. You have some of the same needs. There should be some sort of valid argument. • Stokes: Since I've been here, I've been asked twice to go through that exercise. • Petterson: Can we see the latest? • Stokes: Yes, I'll see if I can dig it up. In the year to date report for the City Manager you can look at what we've gotten done in the last year. We've done a huge amount. • Skutchan: Did you address 37, and the different mandates from the State, and how home rule was affected? • Knowlton: It did not come up as an issue. • Stokes: Our renewable energy standard is higher, it doesn't affect us that much. • Skutchan: Some mentioned conflicting requirements. I'd be curious to look into that further. • Stokes: I will ask. • Skutchan: Part of it was solar, and the lack of hydro. • Donovan: I thought municipalities were exempt. Update on the NRAB's Role in Development Review Nate Donovan said four members of Council supported the idea of the NRAB having a role in development review. There was some confusion if modified Option 4 was really a complimentary review. With the added options of written recommendations some people thought the role we had presented was more like Option 1. Some council members said they would like to see a fusion of Option 4 and Option 1. Another said they liked Option 1, and the other three thought it wasn't appropriate for the board to get involved in the development review process. There was some discussion if Council can pass this in light of a resolution passed in October, 2003. There was discussion if they would be violating or breaking their promise to staff. There was a bit of confusion of it was even germane to the conversation. • Fischer: No one was ready to discuss that. Ray was waving around a piece of paper, and people asked for copies. It was very unclear what the resolution was. • Hart: Where do we go from here? • Donovan: Tom Vosburg gets the pleasure of trying to do that. It would be worthwhile for us to work with him. It's nowhere on the six month planning calendar. • Hart: It sounds as if Council is leaning toward the board having an opportunity to make some comments. • Donovan: Four members said that clearly. As Marty Tharpe stresses, even if the board had a direct line the decision maker can accept or reject the advice. • Donovan: I would think it would behoove us to work on trying to come up with something and work with Tom I'm happy to take the lead. • Staychock: Is Tom still upset with the comments from last meeting? Natural Resources Advisory Board November 3, 2004 Page 5 of 7 Donovan: I haven't talked to him. I was concerned. I wasn't sure it was a strong unanimous condemnation. I thought it was more of a disappointment that we went through the process and got to that point thinking we were ok, We just have to be careful, it goes back to what we've talked about for years, how we think we are perceived, and how we are actually perceived. Spring Canyon Community Park: Nate Donovan Donovan said that at the same study session there was a presentation on the park design. It generally went well. Council gave strong direction that the dog park should be moved to the location of the future rec site and that would be ok. It really did concern me though, that in the presentation staff made comments that there is no wildlife corridor there now, and that they would be creating one. They talked about buffers and buffering the riparian corridor. And, that if you create a land use feature, you're not required to create a buffer. I have mixed feelings if we should, or if it's a good idea to send something to them. I didn't want to get headed down the wrong track. • Thomas: I attended the P&R board meeting. There's a feeling of angst, they feel betrayed. They felt they did a good process and crafted a plan. It sounded a lot like the angst expressed in this room. They had the same feeling, anger, and wanting to do something to change it. The other significant thing, and I couldn't see who they were, but at one point a man said something about the riparian corridor, and added, "I don't get it, aren't dogs natural?" I looked at him and thought this man doesn't understand. Another lady said, "What is a riparian corridor anyway?" Our process of educating them has failed. Who is responsible for educating the P&R board about our concerns? • Donovan: I copied parks staff on our recommendation. They were the ones responsible for the design. The response I got to one of our recommendations to design a concept with few fewer elements was that they'd share it with the P&R board, that's more appropriate than a board giving a recommendation to staff in another department. This has been an unusual thing. I think this board acts in concert with Natural Resources on things, but in this case, it was like the park board was the decision maker instead of staff having the final say. • Petterson: In terms of the responsibility or possibility of educating the P&R Board, maybe in the future we could request an audience, or time slot and let them know our concerns. • Knowlton: It's not our job to educate the P&R Board. Craig Foreman knows what a riparian corridor is. • Donovan: Craig does, but Craig didn't do the talking when these comments were made. • Thomas: Marty Heffernan kept saying they're satisfied with the outcome, we're ok, but the board was really angry. • Knowlton: The difference is they were told by Council that this is what they want. It's the same with our feelings on the development review thing. We felt stabbed in the back by staff, but if four members of council came back and said do this, that's what is done. • Thomas: They felt they had been directed to do a process. • Knowlton: Council can do that. • Thomas: I was shocked at the expression ignorance of natural features and the riparian corridor. It was frustrating to be in the room and not be able to say something. An education process should have occurred. • Donovan: I'm concerned that Council might be left with the wrong impression. It might be helpful to correct the inaccuracies. • Stokes: One thing you should be aware of is the Parks Department has to go through the development review process. When they come in with a plan they have to bring an ecological characterization report. That's when Doug will work more closely with their staff. • Petterson: So to the extent of the confusion, it would be cleared up in that process. Will we get an opportunity to see what comes through? • Stokes: It goes to P&Z. And it goes back to the conversation of the boards' role in development review. • Donovan: The Parks Planning staff will develop a design in response to Council direction. • Colton: There's a slight difference between reviewing a City project and a private proposal. When we looked at the new office building we couldn't say no. Natural Resources Advisory Board November 3, 2004 Page 6 of 7 • Petterson: Am I sensing that you don't think this is a good idea? • Knowlton: If I could be sure they would come back to us and present a design, then I would be content with that. • Stokes: I think there is a plan to do what Council said. They'll take another conceptual plan back. • Donovan: Marty has the idea it won't go to another study session. I don't know where the public will get to see it. • Colton: John, please check on that process. • Staychock: Mark Sears said the buffers were being abided by. • Donovan: Marty correctly stated at the study session that trails can be within the buffer. The Land Use Code allows trails to be in the buffer. Council could still work with trail placement, but they are permitted. • Donovan: We need to check and see if they plan to go back to a study session. • Petterson: And what role we'll have in this again. • Thomas: When they moved the dog park, did they reduce the parking lot again? • Donovan: Yes, by 40 spaces. They took them from the north and put them back in the southern part. • Petterson: Is the sense that we should hold off until we understand more of what will happen? • Staychock: I've got to give the council members some credit. • Petterson: If we send this what action or consequence are we expecting, other than general education? • Donovan: Not leaving them with an incorrect perception. • Petterson: Is there a concern that based on this misinformation they'll make a bad decision? • Donovan: I believe that four members recognize the correct interpretation. But since it only takes four to change the direction it would only take one to change their mind about it. If they're being talked to, who knows. • Hart: It seems there may be some misunderstanding between the two boards. Should we do something about that? • Donovan: It's a good idea, but how do we accomplish that? • Colton: Talk about things like riparian corridors. There is a Trails Committee. • Stokes: Every board has a different level of knowledge and experience. • Tomas: If you're going to have an effective board, shouldn't you go to the lowest common denominator and explain concerns? I don't have the technical expertise, but I expect the people who do to bring up the issues. I would think you've got to go down and educate the whole board, so we're on the same page. • Knowlton: That's not our responsibility. The P&R Board would be highly offended if we tried to educate them. Maybe John should mention this to Craig, that some board members don't understand the concepts we're concerned about. • Donovan: I'd be concerned if we had staff members saying that. • Stokes: I'll write an email about the process tomorrow, and you'll decide about the memo. Other Business Good News • Stokes: I received an email saying that GOCO staff has recommended the Larimer Foothills to Plains for full funding, It's good news and unusual for staff to do that. Staff thought our project was awesome, it's the number one project in the state. We're the only project recommended for 100% funding. It's a real testament to the City's willingness to plunk down major money. Its low key, we're not doing any more sales pitches to the board. It's all live or die on its own. Fossil Creek Reservoir • Stokes: Fossil Creek Reservoir Open Space is open and it's really nice. • Colton: I was struck that it was more like a state park than a natural area, it seems overdone. • Stokes: It was designed to be more accessible on purpose. It's handicap accessible, and accessible for all people. It's easy to get to the lake and the viewing platform. Properties are managed for different intensities of use, some are low use, and others are more intensive. People can only get to certain spots. Natural Resources Advisory Board November 3, 2004 Page 7 of 7 Committee Reports Solid Waste Reduction, Randy Fischer: We received an update from Susie on the Land Use Code changes regarding multi -family recycling. It's going without a hitch, except for a question about cost. Susie said it would be between $400 and $1000, and at least one council member thought that was exorbitant and recommended additional input from the apartment managers industry. She tried to explain this is for new development, not for existing apartments. I don't think it will delay it going forward. We also met the new planner, John Armstrong, and found out a little about him Steve Gillette will talk about the recycling contract at 4:30 on December 1. There was a brief discussion about possible legislative initiatives this year. Ryan Staychock said he would like to join that sub -committee. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Submitted by Terry Klahn Admin Support Supervisor Approved: h - — O -f