Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 03/05/2003 (2)MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE AVE. FORT COLLINS, COLORADO March 5, 2003 Randy Fischer, Chair Nate Donovan, Vice Chair Michelle Pawar, Staff Liaison, 970-221-6600 Ray Martinez, City Council Liaison, 970-416-2154 Board Members present: Randy Fischer, Nathan Donovan, Linda Knowlton, Kelly Ohlson, Sam Otero, Donald Rodriguez, Steve Ryder Board members absent: Philip Murphy, Arvind Panjabi Natural Resources Staff present: Michelle Pawar, Mark Sears Council Members Present: Eric Hamrick Also Present: Ken Waido, City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Department; Mark Jackson, Kathleen Reavis, Transportation Department; Greg Byrne, CPES Director; five members of the public observing The meeting was called to order with a quorum present at 6:05 p.m. New Business Agenda Review There were no changes to the agenda. Minutes Nathan Donovan moved to accept the Feb. 5, 2003, minutes as submitted; Donald Rodriguez seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Mason Street Corridor -- presented by Kathleen Reavis. Ms. Reavis provided an update on the project, currently in the Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Engineering phase, which is expected to continue until the end of this year. Staff is preparing a request for $40-$53 million in Federal Transportation Administration New Starts funding, which must be submitted by August, and working with local, state and federal representatives to pursue other funding. The capital cost of the project is $66 million; the City will be expected to provide $13-$26 million in matching funds. Competition for the FTA grant is stiff, but the Mason Street project has support from CDOT and all the major parties involved; if the transportation tax issue on the April ballot passes, Ms. Reavis estimated the chances of receiving federal funding would be better than 50150. The largest portion of the cost is construction of stations and guideways for the Bus/Rapid Transit (BRT) system. Part of the PE process is determining which portions make sense to build first, since all the funding will not be available at once. Existing Building Community Choices funds and a Colorado Department of Transportation CMAQ grant allow final engineering to begin on the bicycle/pedestrian portion on the south end of the corridor, from Harmony Road to Fossil Creek Trail. Construction on the remainder of the 5.5-mile corridor, which runs along the Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way from Cherry St. to one-half mile south of Harmony Road, will not begin until all planning, design and financial phases have been completed and all necessary agency approvals have been obtained. South of Prospect St., BRT vehicles will run along the east side of the railroad tracks and bikes and pedestrians will have trails on the west. The areas of Mason and McClelland streets that currently allow automobile traffic will continue to do so, and downtown, Mason and Howes streets will return to two-way traffic. Underpasses will be constructed at arterial intersections to allow safe neighborhood access across the railroad tracks. Downtown, railroad officials are very concerned about maintenance of grade -level tracks and would like to see open ballast, pedestrian barriers and street closures. Staff has been meeting monthly with officials from BNSF to work on these and other issues, and Ms. Reavis reported very good support for the project. Ms. Reavis explained that BRTs are hybrids of light rail and traditional buses. Frequent arrivals running every ten minutes and prepaid fares allow quick and efficient passenger service. BRTs are powered by a combination of electricity and compressed natural gas, and other technologies will be considered. Ms. Reavis said BRTs are in use in 52 other communities, and staff has talked to Eugene, Oregon, which has a comparable system. When the Mason Street Corridor is operational, about 7,000-9,000 cars per day will no longer be driving on College Ave. The estimated number of daily trips on College at that time is 80,000. City Plan Update Characteristics -- presented by Ken Waido and Mark Jackson. Ken Waido explained that the final characteristics developed by the Citizens Advisory Committee to guide the update of the City Plan document will be presented to City Council for approval on March 18, so this is the last opportunity for the Board to provide input. Once Council adopts the characteristics, the second phase of the update will entail a cover -to -cover review of the City Plan document to ensure that its principles and policies conform to the vision articulated in the characteristics. The Board reviewed each characteristic, with explanations provided by Randy Fischer and Linda Knowlton, who both sit on the CAC. Kelly Ohlson had concerns about the consistency of the language between different characteristics. In Characteristic RE4, the Board agreed to recommend deleting "adopted limits." For OS5, the Board recommended this alternative wording: The Poudre River Corridor, as a natural environmental system, becomes the centerpiece for environmental protection and open space. On DRP5, according to Randy Fischer, the CAC was unanimous until it came to inclusion of the entire Fossil Creek CPA. The final vote was 12 to 5 to recommend inclusion of just the area bounded by Carpenter Road and Hwy 392. Kelly Ohlson felt there was no reason to include the CSU Foothills Campus. In DRP7, there was much discussion of the unspecified nature of the criteria to be used to evaluate changes in the GMA boundary. Mr. Waido explained that the criteria will be developed in Phase II of the update process. The Board decided to attach the paragraph it had sent to Council in January as reference on its position that any modification of the GMA boundary should be for specific and limited reasons. For DRP9, Mr. Waido explained that currently, a CPA is an intergovernmental agreement that exists for the purpose of preserving the opportunity for future urban growth and annexation, the definition favored by Latimer County. This characteristic calls for redefinition of the CPA for other purposes or development of a new tool to achieve different ends. Either option will require the cooperation of the County. Randy Fischer will draft the Board's input, e-mail it to Board members for approval, and get it to Ken Waido in time for inclusion in the packet for City Council's March 18 meeting. Riverbend Ponds Utility Easement -- presented by Mark Sears Don Rodriguez reported that the Natural Areas committee had reviewed the proposed easement twice and recommended the requesting party look at alternative routes. As a result, the request was scaled back to 100 feet from 300 feet. The committee felt that, given the nature of the area affected, the easement could result in some rehabilitation along the border of the natural area, and recommended approving it. Linda Knowlton passed out a map of the area in question. Rick Bachand's time will be charged to the proposer, based on a log of the time he's spent on the project. Linda Knowlton moved to approve the Riverbend Ponds Utility Easement; Kelly Ohlson seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The recommendation will appear on City Council's summary agenda. Natural Resource Buffers -- presented by Michelle Pawar and Greg Byrne. The Land Use Code standards for natural area buffers were last reviewed five years ago. Is there a need to strengthen, change or modify them? The purpose of the buffers is to protect the existing resource as well as create new habitat whenever possible. Staff has been struggling with buffer issues for some time, and is still in the process of developing a problem statement. In most cases, staff has the authority to adjust the buffers on the ground to address specific situations and works with applicants to achieve a workable solution. The process involves as much get as give. If the variance is greater than 80 percent from established criteria, the applicant has to go through a formal process to change the buffer. To help the committee understand the process staff follows when modifying natural resource buffers for individual properties, staff reviewed two properties that presented particular challenges: The northwest corner of the intersection of College and Trilby and the East Mulberry Corridor on the north bank of the Poudre. The corner four acres of the 50-acre site at College and Trilby was considered for annexation, but the buffer required to protect hawk nesting sites on the property covered the entire property, making it undevelopable. In addition, the requirements of the Transportation Master Street Plan were inconsistent with natural lands standards. The owner withdrew the request for annexation. There is nothing the City can do to control development of the site, and the nesting sites will be replaced by a Walgreen's with a double drive -through pharmacy. On East Mulberry, the old County development is eligible for eventual annexation. It is mostly asphalt and chain link, with no natural resource value, but the properties are completely within the buffer zone of the Poudre. If the properties are annexed to the City, they can't be redeveloped, but the City doesn't want to buy them, either. We have made it a point not to buy buffers, but if buffers go away what do we have? If the city regulates property value away it becomes a takings issue. In addition, other jurisdictions have other requirements, such as federal wetlands protection and Division of Wildlife regulations protecting hawks. The EPA could fine the city for discharge into the Poudre from properties in the buffer. In each case, a number of positive goals are competing and causing gridlock. For example, a nest site we didn't know was there checkmated an affordable housing project; adjusting river buffers affects what happens downstream. When planning priorities are seemingly at odds, how do we measure and compare and decide how to proceed? What do we value more? What's fair and reasonable and equitable? How do we balance priorities? There was much discussion of this complex problem. The feeling was that changes to the Land Use Code might be needed, but what they might look like is unclear. Kelly Ohlson reminded the Board any changes should result in a net gain for natural resources values in and around the City of Fort Collins, and that the majority of buffers will conform to standards. The exceptions should be dealt with in such a manner to make the rest more effective. Joint Meeting with Air Quality Advisory Board -- presented by Michelle Pawar. Ms. Pawar reported that the message from the combined board meeting on February 20 was to create a new board charged with dealing with Open Lands issues while maintaining both existing boards. Linda Kowlton requested written minutes from the joint meeting; Michelle will provide. The Transportation Advisory Board has invited the NRAB to its March 19 meeting to discuss the Timberline issue jointly. The Board accepted; Michelle will coordinate with Don Bockman, staff liaison to the Transportation Board. NAPP Update -- presented by Michelle Pawar, Mark Sears, Greg Byrne. Mark Sears reported that the Parks and Recreation Board had concerns on the meaning of "regional" in the Land Conservation Plan, and made a strong recommendation to Council for more public input on the issue. There was much resistance from the Board, in light of the 65/35 vote on Open Space Yes! and support in previous elections. Michelle Pawar outlined thoughts for a March 25 presentation to City Council's study session, which will be limited to the Natural Areas Policy Plan amendment and the Land Conservation Inventory, and what sort of outreach the Council wants on these issues. As a result of Open Space Yes! approval, the Board is now responsible for a lot of things other than just natural areas, but this update is to the existing Natural Areas Policy Plan. Eventually the scope of the NAPP needs to be expanded and a mutual construct of what all fits under the umbrella of the plan developed. Staff has yet to decide whether this will be an all -encompassing interdepartmental document covering such things as community separators and easements as well as natural areas, or if one document will incorporate other plans by reference only, like in City Plan. This will be resolved before getting public input. Major discussion on the need for public input resulted in Kelly Ohlson's suggestion to ask people to prioritize specific considerations for acquisitions within mountain parks, rather than asking open-end survey questions. Many Board members were concerned the City would lose opportunities to purchase parcels and enter into possible acquisition partnerships if four months are devoted to gathering public input. Staff doesn't need to go to Council to buy land, just final approval of the deal, and will continue to negotiate current and potential deals during the input process. Staff does need a rational basis for making decisions on which properties to acquire and which to let go, and an action plan on where to focus its efforts and scarce resources. The Board rejected the argument that the City can't buy land if the source of long-term maintenance dollars is unknown. That is for future Boards and Councils to decide. Several members supported the idea of having the new Open Lands board be involved in the update process. Chapter 5 of the NAPP goes to Council for approval; the rest of the plan, including inventories, does not require approval, so it can be kept current on an ongoing basis. The goal is to have the authorizing legislation adopted before the new Council is elected in April. Future Agenda Item Kelly Ohlson requested that a continuation of the discussion on the NAPP update appear as the first agenda item after the joint meeting with the Transportation Advisory Board on March 19. Next meetine March 19, 2003, 6 p.m., 281 N. College Ave. Meeting adjourned 11:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Kate Jeracki March 16, 2003