Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 01/08/2003MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE January 8, 2003 For Reference: Randy Fischer, NRAB Chair - 226-5383 Ray Martinez, Council Liaison - 416-2154 Michelle Pawar, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Kelly Ohlson, Nate Donovan, Sam Otero, Linda Knowlton, Phil Murphy Board Members Absent Randy Fischer, Arvind Panjabi, Don Rodriguez, Steve Ryder Staff Present Natural Resources Dent: Mark Sears, Michelle Pawar, Terry Klahn Utilities: Mike Smith Transportation Planning: Mark Jackson Advance Planning: Ken Waido Engineering: Cam McNair, Matt Baker Guests Eric Hamrick, City Councilmember Bruce Meighen, Consultant from EDAW Nate Donovan introduced newly appointed NRAB member, Sam Otero. Election of Officers Randy Fischer was unanimously re-elected to the position of chair. Nate Donovan was unanimously re-elected to the position of vice -chair Agenda Review • Nate Donovan would like to discuss the January 30 roundtable. • Kelly Ohlson has a couple quick questions regarding the "Feedback". Minutes: December 4, 2002 With the following changes the minutes of the December 4, 2002 meeting were unanimously approved: • Page 3, middle: change "the business community opposed..." to "a lot of the business community opposed.... • Page 3, bottom: change "does the City has a say", to "does the City have a say" Natural Resources Advib. ,y Board January 8, 2003 Page 2 of 7 • Page 4, middle: change "If you want to recognize corporate contributions, do it in an annual report" to "If you want to recognize corporate contributions, do it on an annual report" • Page 5: change "it's ridiculous to reduce consumption 10%" to "it's ridiculous to reduce consumption just 1OV • Donovan: change "Hamrich" to "Hamrick" • Donovan: change "Flannikan" to "Flenniken" Electric Energy Supply Policy, Mike Smith Smith reviewed changes to the policy resulting from previous board discussions. • Ohlson: Is a 10% reduction aggressive enough? It seems low. Do you think you have that flushed out, and it's where it should be? • Smith: We think it's a good number. We feel like we're in the ball park. Could it be more aggressive, maybe, but we don't think it's a slam dunk. • Otero: I see 10% as an average across the country. A lot of folks are waiting for the tools to become more efficient and cost effective. • Ohlson: Let's go back to the first one you mentioned, under No. 9. The board didn't think they should all be listed together. Would you consider breaking it out to more than two bullets, give all of them their due, such as, implementing green building, including appropriate regulatory requirements? • Smith: The study session has been delayed so the Electric Board can get their memo right. It will be the second study session in February. • Ohlson: Thanks for coming again. You have gone above and beyond. City Plan Update Process, Ken Waido, Advance Planning and Mark Jackson, Transportation Planning Waido is the project manager for the City Plan Update. He introduced Bruce Meighen, lead consultant from EDAW, who is helping with the project. Waido said there was a commitment to the community to update the plans every five years. The plans are five years old, but from the land use implementation perspective we've only had two years of City Plan and the new land use code policy implementation. Many projects were grandfathered in. Waido said the Citizen Advisory Committee will formulate a recommendation to Council as to the preferred characteristics for the community. The committee will be meeting Monday, January 13. Mark Jackson said they're also making a circuit to the different boards and commissions, and getting their input. • Ohlson: In reading this it says that there has been "lots of support" for some of the items. How are you judging "lots of support"? • Jackson: We're looking at an expanded vision of what you're talking about. We've done different outreach activities. We've talked to different boards & commissions, looked at survey results, talked to the CAC and other groups. We're taking input Natural Resources Advisory Board January 8, 2003 Page 3 of 7 from public meetings and refining it. We've got a number of different tools to gauge input from the public. • Knowlton: The only one with negative reviews is the one with additional interchanges. • Jackson: That seems consistent with what we've heard. There's a sense in the community that I-25 is the dividing line for a lot of people. • Knowlton: The regional cooperation of transit is getting support, but there isn't much specificity as to what that means. • Waido: In the new materials just distributed development and re -development are areas where some of the more controversial characteristics are, especially the one dealing with the growth management boundary. The boundary directly relates to what type of community we'll have. Here's where characteristics represent distinct choices, they can't all be adopted. We're trying to work with the CAC and various other methods of public input. We'll go to City Council in February with a listing of characteristics. What Council adopts will set the stage for the future, regarding specific principals and policies. • Jackson: This process forms the vision for the land use portion of this. We take that vision and try to quantify it into a travel forecast model. • Donovan: What are the issues or questions you'll ask Council to give direction on? • Otero: It seems like bikes/peds are thrown into transportation. I know it's multi - modal, but it's geared to vehicular. Will the model take into account bike/ped movement? Will you highlight deficiencies in the bike/ped system that we need to look at? • Jackson: We've spent a lot of time working on bike/ped. It's behind the scenes. The model will reflect to a degree some of the bike/ped issues because it's a true mode choice model. • Waido: From a land use perspective the most significant land use philosophical shift was embracing the concept of new urbanism from a policy and regulatory perspective. • Ohlson: I have some questions and comments on the resident survey. You've got to be careful on a couple of things. Men and women break differently on politics. To have a 12% difference in male to female skews the poll. I wasn't looking for 50/50, but this is huge. No one in a contested election would count on those numbers. Also, 27% retired is a huge number. The other big one is, by far, the most pro -growth segment dwarfs every other section. To have over 1/3 coming from the most skewed throws the results off. I would throw this poll out. I'll be letting council members know not to count on this polling too much. • Waido: That's a good point. Each one of these is a snapshot using a different tool. The percentages from public meeting number 2 present a different picture. We'll be having another public meeting. • Ohlson: Meetings aren't a scientific survey, this says it is. It says it's statistically valid. Natural Resources Ad L-,y Board January 8, 2003 Page 4 of 7 • Murphy: About the gender bias, a lot of times when I do surveys my wife and I fill them out together. When we look at the number of responses it might not be as great as the 12%. • Ohlson: In my opinion the difference would probably be greater than the 12%. • Ohlson: There was a summary for public meeting number 2, done from public meeting number I? • Jackson: Yes, it's posted on the web. • Ohlson: I would suggest that you start wording things in a neutral way. Such as when you say things like "which characteristics are essential for the future growth" a balance would read "which characteristics are essential for the future character". These need to be as close as possible value neutral. • Meighen: We do our best with the wording. We try to use the CAC, public meetings and boards like this to help us. I appreciate your comment, and it will get reviewed. • Donovan: What do you plan to have happen at the study session? • Waido: We're still working on the questions. We'll ask Council for direction. We'll have a listing of recommended characteristics from the advisory committee. We'll ask Council if there are characteristics they want to see removed, or added, to the list. • Pawar: Maybe it would be helpful if there were a schedule of milestones, to give board members some idea of what to anticipate, and help them know how to prepare. • Jackson: I'm planning to tell the T-board I don't feel it's critical to send a message to Council for the study session. • Ohlson: We have a different philosophy. It's all over by the time things get to a regular council meeting. We try to get our licks in at the work sessions. • Knowlton: I would recommend that the board go through this document and make recommendations of characteristics to keep or lose, and make a recommendation to Council at the study session. • Hamrick: I'd like to say that I think Linda's proposal is a good one. Council would like any information you can give on the pros and cons, pre study session. was a summary ever Timberline Road and Fossil Creek Pawar said that at the last meeting there was a commitment for a time line. We don't have it completed yet, but we should have it by the next regular meeting. Sears said that staff put together a list of what we felt was required submittals, and the issues we wanted addressed by the consultants. We had a meeting today with the project team, and they've done a fairly good job of coming up with a plan of action to address our concerns. Kevin McBride, from Utilities, was there. He's a good wetlands expert. He helped put the whole project into clearer perspective, and really define the true issues that we need to look at and address. We're scheduled to meet again on January 29. Then they're going to follow up with a presentation to NRD staff, and basically go through and show how they have and will address our concerns. If we feel they're there, they'd like to go ahead and make the same presentation to the NRAB natural areas committee meeting February 27. If the NRAB members feel that yes, they've addressed the concerns, they'd be ready to come to the board for approval of the project. They would Natural Resources Aavisory Board January 8, 2003 Page 5 of 7 like to crank on the final design in April. Their long term goals are to be under construction in September. McNair said they will bid the work shortly and start construction on the southern two miles at the end of February or early March. That's probably four to six months of construction work. While that's going on they'll complete the studies you've requested and get the guidance and feedback needed to complete the design. To start construction in October creates some other issues for us. We're faced with decisions about wintertime paving, extended road closures and traffic impacts. We're also expediting another project in order to get it built before September and be out of the way. The design team has started to accumulate studies and get the information you have requested. They need to do a raptor study and field work on extending wetland delineation further than they had before. One of the real issues is the question of hydrology of that area, and how it will impact wetlands in the future. We're looking at the culvert system. We need to make sure they are designed correctly to do the best we can to keep the wetlands alive and vital. Maps and profiles will help us all understand better what it is that makes that wetland be what it is, and how we can do what we need to do without changing that. I think we can solve the flood protection problem without serious damage. One thing that's come out of this is recognition of how the wetland has changed over time, and continues to change. We wont be able to say with assurance that what we do today wont change anything, but it may be difficult to determine if it's the project, or the natural course of events. There's a lot to think of. • Ohlson: I like the Natural Area meeting idea. We can schedule it so we don't lose a month. We never intentionally stall a project, we try to accommodate schedules. • Ohlson: Have we successfully convinced people there has to be a net gain of land? • Sears: They've heard us. • Pawar: We, NRD, will not support mitigation that is a net loss to the natural areas program. • McNair: We haven't done much on that. We need to determine how much mitigation is really necessary . • McNair: I think the consultants are working with Arvind on the bird issue. • Pawar: When a connection is made between the consultant and Arvind, is there a way we could know about that, just so everyone stays in the loop? City Open Space Program Extension, Michelle Pawar Pawar said there was a meeting between herself, Greg Byrne, Steve Roy, Carrie Daggett and Alan Krcmarik. We agreed there would be more meetings. When there is an agenda for the meetings it will be shared with NRAB. Mark Sears is initiating input from the NRD Natural Areas team, looking for their visions and other input. They are one part of a much bigger process. Pawar said they're looking at a timeline, and significant milestones of what needs to be accomplished. A timeline is important for the County. It's more efficient for us to barrel Natural Resources AdvL—.y Board January 8, 2003 Page 6 of 7 through the land conservation opportunities. We feel an urgency to get the policy basis revised and approved by Council. A third part of this is a list of options, pros and cons, that speak to the part of the ballot language requiring an open lands advisory board, or task force, dedicated to the program. • Ohlson: will you have contact with the campaign team, and full disclosure? • Pawar: They're one of the groups we'll be seeking input from. If you think it's important, we'll include them. • Ohlson: There's a strong belief it should be a permanent, independent board. We hope the City establishes a specific board with the time and focus needed. You could more than keep a board busy. • Pawar: That's one of several options I'll be walking through. One idea is, if we established an open lands board, there might be value in consolidating the NRAB and the AQAB at that time. It's food for thought, and something we've talked about internally. • Pawar: At the next regular meeting we'll have a timeline that addresses milestones. • Ohlson: At one time there was discussion about the City Manager and the City having a little celebration. • Pawar: We've been holding off until the City Manager is back to work. NRAB 2003 Annual Report to City Council Donovan said a draft of the Annual Report was emailed to all members. Members should email any feedback to Donovan. The report will be finalized at the January work session. Roundtable The roundtable will be Thursday, January 30, 2003 at Old Chicago Restaurant from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monthly Feedback • Ohlson: I have questions dealing with number 8 on the list; fire hydrants, stakes, pipes. This needs more work. • Ohlson: On number 4, who asked for permission to bore six holes? Sears said it's the area for the potential wetland mitigation. They needed to know the groundwater level. • Ohlson: Can the Cooper Slough tour be done in two hours, instead of 3-1/2 hours? • Ohlson: Are Mark and Rick charging for the time spent on easements for land? Are they charging appropriate monies for this? Sears said Rick has put together a check sheet. We're proposing that when they first come in there's a $500 fee. If it continues we start estimating how much time it's going to take to get through the application through and approved. • Ohlson: On the sidewalk issue, there's no reason to do two full blown sidewalks. There are exemptions to everything. Hopefully you're fighting to not have two full Natural Resources Advisory Board January 8, 2003 Page 7 of 7 blown sidewalks. Sears said upper management has said we're going to have the sidewalks. What might make the difference is board strategy and input. • Ohlson: The standards need to be updated. Most are outdated by fifteen years. • Donovan: Is this something the board can weigh in on? • Sears: We told them they've got to bring their project to the NRAB. New Business • Murphy: How did the burn go? Sears said it went very well. There was no trouble with traffic, and only ten calls to dispatch. • Hamrick: At the council meeting last night there was a controversial vote about part of a proposal, including some open space, in the flood plain. Will the NRAB review that annexation? • Kelly Ohlson suggested having the committee reports at the beginning of the meeting. Linda Knowlton suggested having the notes of the meetings distributed via email to members. Any comments or questions could then be discussed at the meetings. • Nate Donovan asked what the deadline for referral of a ballot measure is. Future Agenda Items Jan 22: Work Session Jan 30: Roundtable Discussion Feb 5: Committee assignments Hetty Bixby asked to be added to a NRAB work session to discuss Soft Gold Park. Announcements Ohlson: How many acres of land were protected/acquired, by the City, in 2002? A motion was made by Linda Knowlton to adjourn to Executive Session to discuss land acquisitions. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved. The meeting was concluded at 10:15 p.m.