Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 04/02/2003MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE April 2, 2003 For Reference: Randy Fischer, NRAB Chair - 226-5383 Ray Martinez, Council Liaison - 416-2154 Michelle Pawar, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Linda Knowlton, Don Rodriguez, Randy Fischer, Arvind Panjabi, Steve Ryder, Kelly Ohlson, Nate Donovan Board Members Absent Phil Murphy, Sam Otero Staff Present Natural Resources Dept: Michelle Pawar, Mark Sears CPES: Tom Vosburg Engineering: Cam McNair Guests None Agenda Review Randy Fischer suggested putting Community Separators before the West Nile Virus discussion. He also said an item regarding a liaison to the AQAB needs to be added. Community Separator Study, Tom Vosburg Vosburg said the last time he was here we talked about the Community Separator Study, and the products it produced. We now trying to bring the project to closure. Since the last meeting I've met with other interested entities, and tonight I'm bringing back those changes. We are hoping that we can have Fort Collins, Timnath, Windsor, and Latimer County hold their acceptance events at the beginning of May so that we can bring closure to the project in tandem. Vosburg said he'd like to acknowledge that this is a different document from what we're used to seeing. The final report is a bit wimpy and lightweight. I know the comments you offered were fairly substantial, though the responses are not particularly in depth, and the character of the document has not fundamentally changed. The recent approval by Natural Resources Advisor} Board April 2, 2003 Page 2 Council of the focus areas shows the community is entirely on track and committed to doing conservation that supports community separators. The gaps that the study might leave will be filled by the broader reach of the focus areas, and the Natural Areas program, which is expanding. Ohlson: The biggest concern to me is, although I respect what you said, is that I see this as a fraudulent plan. The Larimer County Land Use Code, clustering in the County, is not really clustering. The rural land use process is an abomination. To count on Larimer County is completely false. This was not what we had in mind with the rural land use plan. Also, on page 3-4, I thought we were going to mention all tools. Vosburg: It's not on 3-4, but it's been put in other places in the document. Knowlton: I think there's semantics. This is an intergovernmental project, and we can't go out there and make inflammatory statements to the County Commissioners. We did make an explicit statement, that states while those policies play a role, any meaningful implementation of Community Separators must include purchase of properties. We can not rely on regulatory tools alone to do this. Nate Donovan made the following motion, which was seconded by Linda Knowlton: Move the NRAB approve the document. • Ohlson: Why would we want to accept approval of a pathetic document? • Vosburg: I think of this document as a bun, and the meat that this document is holding is the map of the revised separator concept that has been adopted in the Timnath Land Use Plan. The map shows what's really feasible out there. It codifies that they down -planned the south end of Timnath. It was originally zoned for urban density residential development. With the McMorris's coming in, it looked like Timnath was going to an okay to annexation. This map is the thing that this entire report is about. I think that's a pretty big deal. I'm not concerned about there not being substance. I think we did a good job on the GOCO application, and we initiated conversations with land owners. We should adopt this plan to get this graphic into the record. • Ohlson: What do we do to ensure that this isn't another Eagle Ranch Estates. I'd rather have spent the money in other open lands areas. • Vosburg: We would do that by going out there and actively try to buy the land. • Pawar: Tom, please clarify what this document is for, and what it represents. • Fischer: This has happened in the past when we've approved something, and been reassured that something wouldn't happen; it's come back to bite us. • Vosburg: This has no regulatory authority. It means different things to different entities. Their zoning means different things to different places. To Fort Collins, this has no bearing on our GMA, because it's all outside of the GMA. It has no bearing on anything, except the information in the study can inform our land conservation priority setting. If we don't adopt this study, we're kind of stating that we don't Natural Resources Advisory Board April 2, 2003 Page 3 believe the need for this study and community separators exists. We need to either buy the land, or buy the development rights. The bottom line is, the point of Fort Collins accepting this graphic is to give ourselves permission to buy land out there. • Knowlton: What will Windsor and Timnath do if we don't adopt it? • Vosburg: Timnath has already adopted it. We've said that Windsor and Timnath need to develop an IGA saying what's going to happen in the lower part of the river, re: their overlapping GMA. Both agreed neither of them would annex the inner river zone, to prevent that. They've already done their implementation action. They adopted the study to acknowledge the potential conflict, and executed the IGA to prevent that. If we don't accept this, I don't think they'll change that. Neither one of them have active conservation plans beyond this. The fact of the matter is that we, and possibly the County, would be the only ones to purchase and/or protect and. I don't think if we hold out for a hard core document that this wills the way for the county to do more out there. I think we could easily write a more jurisdictional document, but since we have no legal impact on the land out there, I don't think it would mean anything will get done. • Ryder: Looking on 304, there's a statement about IGA's. Can this be salvaged from our perspective if we tie whatever we do out there to Timnath IGA's, to provide more specificity? Is that a tool that we could use to exert a bit more of our influence? I know that Timnath cares about the separator. They're not interested in down -zoning, they're going to leave the County zoning in place. There is a thought that if the City takes an active implementation role here we might be able to influence aspects of hwo Timnath grows. The document, especially because there are 4 signatures to it, is not the appropriate place for hammering out those details. I don't see much merit of dragging the other two jurisdictions along when this principally is an issue between Timnath and Fort Collins. • Panjabi: What are the sections of the area? • Vosburg: Almost three sections. • Panjabi: So, there are a lot of different land owners? • Vosburg: Not really, you can count them on two hands. • Knowlton: I'm a little confused now. So, you're not supporting section 1 on page 3- 24? It says an IGA is needed. • Vosburg: I think we can say an IGA is needed, but this isn't the document to go into what the IGA should say. We can say this is another step that can be taken, but cant expect to have the content delineated in this study. • Ohlson: We can get to something we can all agree on. What did we ask for as a board that wasn't put in? • Fischer: That would be almost everything. To be honest with you, the redlined version makes me hard pressed to see where any of our comments made it into the document. There are some fairly weak attempts to insert out point, ie., fee simple acquisitions. Clearly to me the emphasis is to use existing regulatory tools to manage development. We all know by now that wetlands are not protected. The director of CPES thinks the buffers are wrong. So, we have no support for protecting buffers. I do believe the County plan is wrong. It's absolutely flabbergasting to me that we're still talking about the GOCO grant when we know now that we didn't get it, and we Natural Resources Advisory Board April 2, 2003 Page 4 won't get it, because they're changing where the money goes. This is a fairy tale. Why are you putting out a document that about a GOCO grant that we know we didn't get? • Vosburg: Larimer County is a signatory on this. There are examples in here where the rural land use code can come through. It does contribute in the river with the Swift property. • Fischer: No one is suggesting that we're disrespectful of the County's regulations. I remember some really good suggestions about how to go about the acquisition program. • Pawar: What can we do to get you comfortable? • Ohlson: The writing style doesn't help. I think 4, 5, and 6 are the three key points. Opportunities exist, and land use isn't going to do it. It's going to take money, and we need to do it now. It's going to be Fort Collins if we need to do it. • Ryder: To follow up on Kelly's point. I'd have a question about 6 and signing off on setting a priority on this area. I don't want this to be a formal step in front of other opportunities. This is one of those things that I can see being thrust back at us. • Ohlson: I agree with you that this isn't the highest priority. • Fischer: What do you want to do? We have a motion on the floor. • Vosburg: We can do one more round of edits on the report. • Donovan: I'll withdraw the motion. • Fischer: We'll take action on April 16`h. • Ohlson: Our memo will commend Tom for this good work, and then highlight points that are of consequence to us. • Fischer: I still don't understand what the I-25 corridor plan has to do with this plan. • Ohlson: I also have a question on that. Last night, Marty announced that there's a final report on the I-25 Open Space Task Force. • Fischer: I think we had some idea that this would happen. This is not about you, Tom. Vosburg: Maybe we now realize we shouldn't have attempted to do this. Since we realize this, we created instead some kind of consensus around what we could agree on. We tried for GOCO, and we used this as an opportunity to make property owner contact. I think we're still in the same spot and we do know the lay of the land out there. The glass may be half full. Fossil Creek Wetlands, Mark Sears Fischer said that action is not required on this easement. My understanding is that what is being requested is that we give staff and consultants some kind o f direction on if we think they're headed down a wrong path, or headed in the right direction. Mark Sears said that TST has provided a memo that details items on which the team has met consensus. The anticipated time line is that by the end of June the plans and specs will be brought to the NRAB. They will be back by early August to get support. Also addressed is the alignment of Timberline Road to the east to avoid the more sensitive area on the west. The wetlands that will be mitigated will be on one side of Fossil Creek. Compensation for the land will not be necessary. Since they're restoring a streambed Natural Resources Advisory Board April 2, 2003 Page 5 they're putting in wetlands that we would have done for ourselves. This should be in lieu of compensation. • Donovan: Do we know how much will be filled in by the road bed. • McNair: 2.17 acres will need to be mitigated, it might be a bit more. • Sears: We don't have a figure on the exact amount of land. • McNair: We'll have this precisely defined in the next round of documents. • Donovan: So any additional right of way the Natural Area program will be compensated for? • Sears: Correct, anything beyond the 2.17. • Ohlson: To benefit the lack of disturbance in an environmentally sensitive area we're altering the changes. • McNair: This is trying to say there are some safety requirements when you have curves in a road. We already compromised our design criteria. That wont change. We're just trying to ensure that we have safe transitions on the road itself. • Ohlson: We didn't talk about that, did we? • McNair: No, but that's just a qualifier. In terms of the alignments, in the maps you received it gives a pretty clear picture of the area that would be impacted. We didn't feel it was necessary because it still will be finished, and the impacts wont change. • Fischer: In trying to meet the design criteria, if you find the curve radius to be much larger, we'll know that when the easement document comes in. • McNair: You'll see that we're trying to avoid the Ash tree that has state significance, and the hawks nests as well. The road tries to avoid these sensitive areas. • Ohlson: I'd like to have a verbal agreement that we're not signing off on 2.17 acres. It if ends up being more, we'll get one to one mitigation. • McNair: Yes. • Ohlson: What if the plantings don't take. What are the assurances the wetland will be a functional wetland? • McNair: Would you like a warranty? • Sears: We'll address that in the temporary easement. • Ohlson: Will NRD get compensated for their work on this? • Sears: Yes. • Panjabi: What if the wetlands aren't as functional as anticipated? What will the recourse be? • Sears: I don't know the answer to that question. We'll address it in the easement. The Corps will address it with the engineers. They'll need to document and follow up to demonstrate they've established the wetlands. We'll hold them accountable. • Ohlson: Then we should write the warranty appropriately. • Panjabi: We asked them questions about how they determine the use by wildlife. I hope we can get more than that. • McNair: The design consultants have a certain responsibility to do proper design. There will be a warranty on that as well as the materials. The wild card is the evolution of the wetland itself. I guess you always need to have a qualifier in there Natural Resources Advisory t3oard April 2, 2003 Page 6 because the report that you read is that we need to see how things work over time. They can only guarantee to a point. • Ohlson: You don't get a lifetime warranty, but a ten year warranty is appropriate. I'd like this not to be a mud hole. • Rodriguez: In the warranty I'd like to see some form of detail in what will be addressed. • Fischer: Will we have a chance to look at this? • Sears: Yes, you'll have a chance to look at this for final review in June. • McNair: They want to go to Council in August and begin construction in October. We need to stay on that timeframe because it's critical for habitat. • Panjabi: We're not adding extra lanes to increase traffic flow. Other than raising the road up the only thing done is the bike lanes. Six feet is wider than this table. So this is almost 24 feet of additional road base in a wetland that will be destroyed. Is there anyway that the bike lanes can be more narrow? • McNair: Most of our arterials use eight feet, six feet is the minimum. The existing slope there is one to one. The stability and need for long term maintenance is there. It's an old road. It's one of the design criteria where we came back from a four to one slope to a three to one slope to replace what's there today. • Ohlson: So, what are the options? Could it be five feet instead of six? • McNair: We watered that down to six feet on Timberline Road. We built the whole thing in concrete. Part of the problem with using bike lanes is that we're increasing the potential for conflict. • Donovan: I'd be concerned about going to less than six feet. What will the speeds be? • McNair: People can drive what we say they can drive. • Fischer: The wider the lanes, the more open the view, the faster people will drive. Are the lanes 12 or 11 feet? They could be reduced to I 1 feet, that's what we have on Taft Hill. • McNair: We need the extra space to avoid head on collisions. We've tried really hard to minimize this as much as possible and still keep the roads safe. A good part of that is already in the right of way, but shifting to the east we'll acquire less right of way so already it's a bit off center. We've tried to minimize as much as we think is prudent. • Panjabi: Is there a way to minimize grade? • McNair: We'd still be disturbing the same space, and adding more cost to the project. • Sears: Another fact to consider is the maintainability of the slopes. Anything less is really hard to mow and keep weeds down. It really is the most effective as a three to one slope. If this were not in a wetland I'd prefer much broader slopes, but because this is a wetland, three to one is best. • Fischer: I think we've acknowledged we all have some concerns. They've come so far from what this started out to be that I think they are making good compromises. • Ohlson: The process here is valid, and it does show results. • Rodriguez: I agree. Linda Knowlton made the following motion: Move that the Natural Resources Advisory Board agree to the April I letter from TST to the Natural Resources Department. Natural Resources Advisory board April 2, 2003 Page 7 The motion was seconded by Don Rodriguez. • Donovan: I would amend the motion that we agree to it subject to the review of documentation when it's available. I'm not comfortable giving blanket approval. • Ohlson: We're going to build in our concerns about the warranty. • Rodriguez: We should address that in the memo. • Knowlton: Agreeing to this memo only says that we're going to see the easements in June. • McNair: The main thing is acknowledging that design shifts to the east, and what wetlands mitigation has been selected. • Panjabi: I'm still unconvinced of the need and scale of the project. That road is functional. It's the City's most significant natural area that we're talking about building a highway through. • Donovan: The recommendation doesn't have to be unanimous. The motion passed with 6 votes in favor and one vote opposed (Arvind Panjabi). West Nile Virus Randy Fischer said he had asked Michelle Pawar for an update on what the City's plans are for addressing this issue. He said that other cities have plans, and he is hoping that as a community we could come up with something a little more progressive than the wholesale. • McFerran: Kelly DiMartino got some inquiries from the community. We see this as a public health issue. The County, the CDC, and the State are very clear on the policies they recommend. Rich Grossman, from the County, has been great. There's a lot of emphasis on public education to help mitigate the risks on the spread of mosquitoes and West Nile Virus. They also test birds, horses, etc. They will do some light surveillance, including traps. If there is a hot spot they'll do a more intensive study on that given area. • Fischer: So, is the regional approach heavy on spraying? • McFerran: The IPM is systematic. Due to staffing problems minutes were not taken during most of this discussion item. 2003 Council Policy Agenda Fischer said he received a memo from the City Manager's Office stating that the new Council will meet in a retreat and review policy agenda for the next two year cycle. The City Manager would like for us to submit our recommendations of what we'd like to see in the next policy agenda. The agenda is like a work plan that shows what the Council wants to accomplish in a two year period. I'm not sure how it's used by staff, but it does have influence. Much of what staff brings to Council is guided by their policy agenda. I thought we could take a few minutes tonight to start a discussion of things we'd like to see. Natural Resources Advisory Board April 2, 2003 Page 8 • Knowlton: Would this be something our Futures Committee could do some work on and bring to the Board? • Donovan: The roundtable discussion was brought to the NRAB by the Futures Committee. • Knowlton: We could use the policy agenda and match it with input from the roundtable discussion and bring the Futures Committee recommendation to the board. • Fischer: I think that's a great idea • Donovan: I'd like to do it by email if possible. • Fischer: So it's Nate, Phil and Randy. Would anyone else like to participate? • Knowlton: Nate could send it to the whole board. • Fischer: I'm not satisfied with the pace that solid waste reduction is occurring in this community. There is evidence that shows we're going backwards on recycling per capita. It seems to be that we have a pretty good track record on citizen involvement on natural areas. Council has gone along with making sure we have a strong natural areas program. It seems like pollution prevention and solid waste reduction are lagging behind. Natural area issues dominate our agendas. I'm looking forward to splitting off the Natural Areas Board so that the NRAB can focus on other issues. In terms of solid waste and recycling, I'd like to see systemic change. I think recycling sidesteps the real issue of over -consumption and excessive packaging. I'd really like to see the City make some progress on that. I'd like to see some progress made on pollution prevention. • Panjabi: What is preventing the City from having mandatory recycling? Other cities have it. • Knowlton: Some communities have abandoned that because of economics. • Fischer: There is a recycling summit the County is having on April 8. I think everyone here received an invitation. • Pawar: Public health and defining the City's role in dealing with the related issues is imperative. Other Business Fischer said that Jim Hibbard is here to get feedback on the presentation Utilities made last week on flood plain regulations. • Hibbard: We have prepared a recommendation for revised flood plain regulations. Along with the mapping, this provides the whole picture of what it looks like. Master plans proposed the basins in town to reduce flooding. Last week we gave the overall picture of what our approach is. We hope to come back to the board for your recommendation. Last time we were asking you for what you're interested in, what kind of detail you'd like. We can go through all of the basins in town, or go at a higher level. • Panjabi: I would suggest we get a copy of the draft plan to read. • Hibbard: Each plan is about two feet thick. We are preparing executive summaries. We have a quick guide and can go through that with you. Or, we can give it to you and get your feedback and answer your questions. • Donovan: When you say master plans, is there a separate master plan for each basin? • Hibbard: Yes, we're combining those into one large City master plan. Natural Resources Advisory Board April 2, 2003 Page 9 • Rodriguez: Are the potential environmental impacts clearly indicated in those? • Hibbard: Not in a great level of detail because they are conceptual documents. We know when we get down to designing these there will need to be many more wetland characterizations. We have set goals to improve streams and habitat in identified areas. If we don't leave things better than how we found them, we wont have done our job. But, we haven't gone to a very detailed level of design, that would happen as we get to each project. • Ryder: To what extent will NRD and the Natural Areas Program participate in potential projects? • Hibbard: There are some stand alone projects that don't have much to do with flood control. But there are opportunities to do things with different participants, whether it's NRD, grants, or outside organizations. • Panjabi: My interests are how the plans impact existing habitat along the flood plains in terms of preventing development or alteration. • Hibbard: We try to balance risk with regulations. In lower risk areas some regulations do allow some development. • Fischer: It seems to me that we will not have the time to go through each, individual basin. If we have one chance to comment on drafts of the ordinance and/or flood plain regulations, that might be enough. There might be a lot of environmental sensitivities in some basins as opposed to others. You and I could work directly together to identify significant areas of environmental threat. What would be your schedule on Boxelder and Cooper Slough? • Hibbard: We have a preliminary plan that we're taking to open houses. We're trying to get input from Boards & Commissions. We have between now and July to get your input. If we find out our drafts aren't too far off, we'll move to Council worksession in late summer or early fall. • Fischer: We would want to see Cooper Slough and Boxelder relatively soon. Our agendas are full. It would likely be the first meeting in May. • Hibbard: That would be great. We can come back then and give you presentations on all of the plans with particular detail on some of the more environmentally sensitive basins. • Fischer: Dry Creek would be another one. Maybe on May 7 we could have you come back and do a presentation on the overall master plans to give us a feel for what's being impacted, including both natural areas and natural features. • Ryder: We do our homework, so if you give us stuff ahead of time we can read through everything to minimize your presentation. • Hibbard: Cooper Slough and Boxelder offer the most opportunity for rehab and improvements. If you have any questions you want to talk about with us directly, please feel free to contact me. Liaison to AQAB Fischer said there was a recommendation at the joint meeting to have a liaison between the NRAB and the AQAB. The AQAB has designated a liaison. We don't need a liaison at every meeting, but when agendas overlap it would be good. Do you have any ideas, or is there someone that would like to be designated liaison? Natural Resources Advisory ooard April 2, 2003 Page 10 • Donovan: I think issue by issue would be better. Different members might have more interest on a given issue than others. • Fischer: I guess it'll be my job to monitor the AQAB agendas and see when we want to have someone there. Committees • Rodriguez: I attended the Cache la Poudre meeting on the heritage corridor and heard a group of students from CSU attempt to facilitate communication between various constituents on the river. I think NPS is struggling with their role as grand facilitator. There was a group of students with great intention to facilitate more discussion and action in terms of all of the interests along the river. It was an interesting meeting, but not much came of it. They've taken some steps. It's interesting how the alliance is moving forward. I haven't had much interaction with the City on the river corridor. How much are they trying to integrate or coordinate interpretative messages along the river? • Sears: Edith hasn't heard from them in two years. I think they were frustrated with us. In order to cooperate you must have some overlapping goals. What really came out is that it's not in our mission to do interpretation of cultural and historical things. Our goals might even be in opposition. • Fischer: So the focus of this effort is primarily historical? • Rodriguez: Yes. • Fischer: I'm glad you went to the meeting, I was curious. George Wallace called me two days before the meeting. • Ryder: Is there a list of the board members? • Rodriguez: Richard Brady from Greeley is heading up the effort. • Fischer: Are you planning to go to more of these meetings? • Rodriguez: I don't anticipate regular meetings will occur. The Trails committee will meet on April 15, and the Natural Areas committee will meet on April 24. There will be a Budget committee meeting on April 16. • Announcements 1. There are openings on the County's Open Lands Board. Nate Donovan made the following motion: As authorized by City Code Section 2-31 (a)(3), I move to go into executive session for the purpose of consideration for the strategy for the acquisition of property. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.