Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 01/07/2004MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE January 7, 2004 For Reference: Randy Fischer, NRAB Chair - 226-5383 Eric Hamrick, Council Liaison - 225-2343 John Stokes, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Nate Donovan, Arvind Panjabi, Joann Thomas, Gerry Hart, Glen Colton, Randy Fischer, Clint Skutchan, Ryan Staychock, Linda Knowlton Board Members Absent None Staff Present Natural Resources Dept: Terry Klahn, Mark Sears Building & Zoning: Felix Lee Stormwater: Jim Hibbard, Bob Smith Real Estate: Trish Dennison, Ralph Campano Guests Aaron Web, Citizen Installation of New Members Three new members, Glen Colton, Joann Thomas and Gerry Hart, were welcomed to the Natural Resources Advisory Board. Election of Officers Chair: Nate Donovan was unanimously elected as chair of the board. Vice Chair: Linda Knowlton was unanimously elected as vice chair. Committee Asshmments Donovan said that if committees are well functioning, it makes the meetings easier. Serving on a committee is voluntary, and not usually too time intensive. Education: (This committee will meet on an as -needed basis) Arvind Panjabi, Joann Thomas Growth Management: (This committee will meet on an as -needed basis) Clint Skutchan, Glen Colton, Linda Knowlton Natural Areas: (4th Thursday of the month, noon) Gerry Hart, Glen Colton(chair), Randy Fischer, Linda Knowlton, Arvind Panjabi, Nate Donovan Natural Resources Advisory Board January 7, 2004 Page 2 of 10 Solid Waste: (1" Wed of the month, 4:30 p.m.) Randy Fischer (chair), Nate Donovan, Arvind Panjabi Budget: (This committee will meet on an as -needed basis) Glen Colton, Gerry Hart, Nate Donovan Futures: (This committee will meet on an as -needed basis) Clint Skutchan, Nate Donovan Trails: (3`° Tues. of the month, noon)ooint w/ P&R Board) Ryan Staychock, Clint Skutchan, Randy Fischer, Linda Knowlton • Knowlton: I would like one of our committees to look at easement agreements before board meetings and advise the board if it looks ok. Sitting in board meetings and going through easements is counter -productive. • Sears: That's where we usually take them. It's up to the board as to how detailed they scrutinize the agreements. • Panjabi: We need to come up with some standards we'd like to see in all easements. • Sears: We have a pretty set boiler plate easement. We've got it down to a fairly cut and dry easement process. • Panjabi: There was one a couple weeks ago that allowed the property owner to eradicate prairie dogs on the property. That's inconsistent with what we'd like to see. • Knowlton: I would like someone to look at a full legal document and advise the board. Someone has to look at each one. • Donovan: I do agree with Mark that they are becoming boiler plate. • Fischer: We do have an easement policy that was drafted and adopted by Council for utility easements. That was initiated by this board. We worked hard to get this done. It basically requires that this board see all utility easements before they go to Council. It also says that if there's any other alternatives than going through natural areas we shouldn't grant the easement. That's a big criteria we've been forgetting. The key issue is that natural areas don't become utility corridors for new development. If there's another route, they should use it. • Knowlton: Can we say for now that the natural areas committee will get all easements before they go to the full board? • Sears: We can try to do that. Occasionally we'll have ones that are under a time crunch. But it shouldn't normally be a problem. • Fischer: We have two task forces going on. The first is revisions to the buffer standards for land use codes. They've met once a month for the last couple of months. And there's the West Nile Virus task force. We're trying to be proactive planning for next year. We're meeting with the AQAB and City staff with the idea of formulating a recommendation to Council. • Donovan: There's also a Larimer County Blue Ribbon Recycling committee. It's giving input to the County in developing a request for proposal for a contractor to operate the Larimer County Recycling Center. Randy and I sit on that board, but not as representatives of this board. Natural Resources Advisory Board January 7, 2004 Page 3 of 10 Review and Approval of Minutes The minutes of the December 3, 2003, meeting were unanimously approved as written. Flood Plain Regulations & Stormwater Master Plan, Jim Hibbard and Bob Smith Jim Hibbard said he doesn't have a presentation. He's here to point out minor changes made since the last time he was here. There had been discussion about the desire of the board to have changes we hadn't made. Staff tried to recreate notes and minutes. Essentially what we came up with was certain members of the board would like to have seen a little more strongly worded statement about the importance of water quality and habitat. I'd like to remind you that in the report where it talks basin by basin, depending upon the basin, there usually is a statement about habitat and water quality. We're trying to be responsible to the last discussion. • Panjabi: Is there a general desire to remove eroded banks altogether? That concerns me a bit. Cut banks are natural features and provide habitat to certain species. A blanket policy to grade out those areas concerns me. • Hibbard: We definitely don't believe there should be a blanket policy. The flood plain regulations talk about erosion buffers on certain streams, especially streams that are unstable. The intention is to stay out and let streams do what they do. We don't have a blanket policy. • McBride: The idea is to let the creek do what it wants. I think in most urban settings it's fairly well established you do get excessive erosion and head cutting. The typical response in urban streams is down cutting because of increased flows. We're trying to reach the balance. • Panjabi: I agree. I'm leery of certain habitat features being lost. • Staychock: Last time I was concerned with irrigation ditches. You mentioned the City of Fort Collins already approved improvements to irrigation ditches. There's a lot of private property. Are the taxpayers paying to improve private property without the ditch companies chipping in? • Hibbard: We would pay for improvements, but they are for stormwater purposes, not the conveyance of irrigation. • Staychock: And the ditch companies agree with this? • Hibbard: Yes, we have to have an agreement and we work very closely with them. • Hart: On page 21 the program has a benefit to cost ratio of 0.60. Are these improvements really necessary? • Hibbard: Overall we try not to look at each individual project. There are benefits that spill over. We tried to be conservative in what we claim for benefits. We stuck to structures and contents and haven't talked about damage to public infrastructure, as well as loss of life. • Colton: If we approve the plan, does that mean all of the projects would be approved to be done? • Hibbard: This represents the blue print. The actual projects themselves would get authorized through the budget process. It's pay as you go. At any point Council can Natural Resources Advisory Board January 7, 2004 Page 4 of 10 say we're not going to fund anymore, or we're going to slow it down. They can pick projects. A lot of things depend on cooperation with Engineering and Natural Resources. • Knowlton: Do you want a recommendation from us prior to the study session? • Hibbard: We came back because we thought you wanted us to. It would be great to have a recommendation, but we don't really need it. • Fischer: I think it would be best to give a recommendation now. Council gives a lot of direction in study sessions. It's appropriate for the board to weigh in. • Staychock: Are habitat improvements included in the total cost?' • Hibbard: Yes. There are a few places that are stand alone water quality funds. • Skutchan: Is this like most other plans and will be reviewed on a timely basis? • Hibbard: It is not reviewed on a regular basis, but on an as -needed basis. • Panjabi: In the Poudre River section, it says one of the recommended solutions is levies and channels. Are these existing levies? • Hibbard: Some are new. A few others that already exist are being raised. • Smith: Levies are a last resort. Glen Colton made the following motion: Move that the Natural Resources Advisory Board recommend to Council that they adopt the Stormwater Master Plan, but that they clearly look at the financials of each basin, and make decisions in a fiscally responsible manner before approving the projects. The motion was seconded by Linda Knowlton. • Colton: I'm concerned that it's $210 million in improvements to help 2600 structures. It seems very expensive to me. Council should address if it's the right thing to do, to have the whole city fund certain areas of town that were not built properly. It's a lot of money in an environment where there's not a lot of money. We need to be careful of who benefits and who pays. Other than that it's great technically. • Fischer: I agree with Glen's motion. Staff has put a lot of effort and work into this. I do hope that when we send a recommendation we include our comments and concerns. • Fischer: I would hope that Council will direct staff to make sure that programs and projects are not simply to make more developable land out of land that's not currently developed. The area for that to happen is Dry Creek. I don't see why the citizens would pay to benefit a few people. It's almost a subsidy. Besides the growth issue, that's not something we should be doing as a community. • Fischer: The Oxbow levy could be built on Buckingham. We'll protect 18 acres of vacant land by building that levy, and will increase the value of the property that we're protecting. That bothers me. The cost of all the basins combined is excessive. I'm not sure we can afford this as a community. I would still be in favor of creating special districts to address basins that are built out to sub -standard criteria. Natural Resources Advisory Board January 7, 2004 Page 5 of 10 • Knowlton: I agree with Glen and Randy. But, its not in the purview of this master plan to address the funding. Council needs to revisit that. It has led to astronomical stormwater rates, and most people will not benefit from any of these. • Skutchan: I go along with the motion, but I don't have the same concerns. Especially that we're subsidizing certain property. What is being done is being done in good faith, and for the betterment of the community. I have concerns about it being fiscally responsible, but I don't look at it as subsidizing. It's making up for past faults. • Hart: Do we look at non-structural solutions to the fullest extent possible? Maybe we're better off removing the structures and letting the rivers run. Are we spending a lot of time with the non-structural solution? • Hibbard: A couple of the most expensive basins are in Old Town. We've tried to look at a wide variety of solutions, including doing nothing. The Poudre River has some areas where structures are targeted for acquisition. • Hart: I'm not sure if the question of this being something we really want to do as a community has ever been adequately answered. The motion passed unanimously. International Residential Code & Energy Code, Felix Lee • Donovan: Was cost the major issue at the last Council meeting? • Lee: Yes, the major comments were from the HBA and contractors on the Energy Code. While the builders feel these provisions are valid they think it's a significant leap from where we are and a fairly substantial cost associated with those changes. • Colton: Did you do an analysis of how much this saves people on an annual basis? • Lee: Yes, it's all in the handout. • Colton: How many people are already doing these things? • Lee: Some builders already do. • Donovan: Is your recommendation to adopt the model energy code, or is it plus amendments? • Lee: It's plus amendments. Heating and cooling is where I make specific recommendations. Based on the Home Energy Study, the current industry practices with respect to heating and cooling are not high performance standards. There are leaky duct systems, and oversized equipment to compensate. The model code requires all duct work to be sealed; currently the code says substantially air tight. • Lee: Some people have heard we're trying to improve to the 2007 standards as a rule of thumb. We are allowing tradeoffs. • Skutchan: There's an extra cost to the contractor. What is written in the code to specify who is responsible? • Lee: The general contractor is responsible. • Skutchan: These numbers don't calculate out to how many years it takes to get to the point where you're recouping the costs. • Lee: This is based on a 30-year mortgage. I don't think I can say there's a break even point. One reason is the volatility of energy prices. • Staychock: In your personal opinion, do you think these standards will make the home a better product for the homebuyer? Natural Resources Advisory Board January 7, 2004 Page 6of10 • Lee: Yes, I do. Homes will be more durable, healthier, more comfortable, and in turn, better for the environment. • Thomas: How is a tighter sealed house healthier? • Lee: You could theoretically seal a house to the point where it needed ventilation. Many builders are now doing that with the furnace blower. It's taking in fresh air every hour. Uncontrolled infiltration is a huge problem. • Panjabi: What's the major source of variation in cost, the builder or the materials? • Lee: It's not the materials, but labor costs were all over the place. The low end is fairly conservative. Linda Knowlton made the following motion: Move that the Natural Resources Advisory Board recommend to Council adoption of the Energy Code and amendments. The motion was seconded by Glen Colton. • Hart: What is the major objection of the builders? • Lee: They feel it's too expensive and unnecessary. The HBA supports the concepts in the Energy Code, but feel it's too much of a leap. My response is there's a huge need for improvement. • Hart: How do they respond when you tell them you have a higher cost on the mortgage and lower cost on energy charges? • Lee: The response is: What's the cost over the life of house? • Hart: The net difference is the cost of ownership. • Lee: I agree. But, the Affordable Housing board is concerned with first costs, and buyers excluded from the market. • Skutchan: That's a valid point. There's a huge difference in what you get versus what you don't get for $6000. • Lee: I appreciate that, but my job is the welfare of the entire community, and public good overall. I believe sincerely these amendments are warranted. They're worth the costs. With that said, Council has to make the decisions. • Knowlton: The Affordable Housing Board has to look at it from the point of view of their charter. The NRAB has to look at it from the view that we're supposed to be interested in energy efficiency and the environment. The motion carried with 7 votes in favor, and 1 member abstaining (Joann Thomas). CDOT Rest Area, Mark Sears • Donovan: What's changed? McKenzie: The property line changed a little. It had to do with grading. • Sears: The mining is complete at this point. We'll work with LaFarge to take the berm and put it back in the hole. • Hart: Will you shut the access out? The access is very close. • McKenzie: There would never be a left turn into here. Natural Resources Advisory Board January 7, 2004 Page 7 of 10 • Staychock: Right in, right out. Is there anyway for folks to come into the City and spend their money: • McKenzie: Yes, at the signals • Knowlton: The more I think about this, the less I like it. I don't like the proximity to the natural area. It's appropriate for a rest stop. The impact to the natural area will be unacceptable. • Hart: Is it typical for trucks to spend the night, is it allowed? • McKenzie: Yes, it's allowed. Rest areas are for people to rest, for as long as they need. • Panjabi: Do trucks stop at the current rest stop overnight? • McKenzie: Yes. • Panjabi: How many spaces are there at the new site? • McKenzie: Twenty-five. • Panjabi: Why this site? Why not north of town where there's not so much pressure on the land? • CDOT: It was the City that suggested it to enhance the usage of the visitor center. We're consolidating our rest areas. It was a good fit for both of us • McKenzie: Otherwise they'll redevelop where they are. Right now it's mutually beneficial. • Panjabi: You're not considering any alternatives? • CDOT: If this doesn't happen, we'll redevelop where we are. • Staychock: I agree with Linda that there is potential for impacts on the natural area. Looking south, mining impacted half of the property proposed for development. I think development over the mining area is a good use for that property. • Knowlton: I was on the tour. At the time I thought it sounded like a good idea. Now I think it's a bad idea. I know why people stop at rest stops, and I don't think I want those activities happening on my natural area. I don't want more people in RV's stopping and letting their kids and dogs run in a natural area. It would be much better if it were further north. • Knowlton: Do you think they'll be in Running Deer Natural Area? • Sears: We've worked to design this in such a way that the trail head isn't a focal point. There's no signage. There is a fence. They're providing a dog run. We're not thinking there will be a lot of people drawn to the natural area. • Knowlton: What kind of fence runs along the natural area? If its buck and rail a dog can go right through that. • Sears: We've talked about a two or three rail fence with a wire mesh to prevent dogs from leaving the rest area. • Colton: I've been to places where there are twenty-five trucks stopped and running. • Panjabi: That's one of my concerns. • McKenzie: Peak times for trucks are either mid -day (10:00am — 2:OOpm), and again from 2:00 am to 6:00 am. • Colton: Is it standard to encourage trucks to stop in rest areas? • McKenzie: Yes. Natural Resources Advisory Board January 7, 2004 Page 8of10 • Panjabi: Why is it only this site, or stay where you are? It doesn't seem like where you are will suit your needs. Why not sell this parcel and go somewhere else where land is more available and build the center you need. • CDOT: We have no land acquisition projects. • Panjabi: This is expensive isn't it? It seems like the cost of the land is the least of it. • Sears: I wouldn't say that. The City highly encouraged CDOT to not go further north. We wanted the development where if they were going to leave the road they would do it in conjunction with the Welcome Center. • Hart: What is the benefit to Fort Collins for having the rest stop here versus where it is now? • McKenzie: With this, CDOT would install some lights, and bring the level of service back up to an acceptable level. • Skutchan: I've toured it. It makes sense on a number of different levels. Politically speaking, if you have a Welcome Center coupled with a rest stop, when funding comes around for regional interchanges it might bump us up on the list. There is a possibility that one of the regional trails could use the existing area. To me, you're making use of two parcels of land. I support this and think it's a good idea. Clint Skutchan made the following motion: Move that the Natural Resources Advisory Board approve this land exchange, with the notation of our concerns, and continue to work with us on the buffer areas, Boxelder, and the natural area. The motion was seconded by Gerry Hart. • Knowlton: My feeling is there is no benefit to Fort Collins. Frankly we don't want 18 —wheelers driving down Prospect. The RV's wont go into town, there may be a few cars. • Panjabi: It's a long way into town. It will provide a catalyst for development at the, interchange. • Knowlton: I don't like the picture. It's looking like a Del Camino. • Staychock: I agree it is a long way to town. But, at the same time a lot of our City services could use the tax dollars spent by visitors. There are industrial areas on the other side. We are going to see that development come; that surrounds the proposed truck stop. Getting land next to the Poudre River is a good swap. It's not just the visitor center. It's also the ELC. A lot of it's features are aimed at educating people about the environmental concerns of northern Colorado. People have said we're going to lose that facility. If this will help the numbers of people going into the Visitor Center I see that as a positive consequence. • Colton: If we're going to attract people to shop it should be in the Harmony corridor. • Thomas: If you want to increase traffic to the City, Prospect is the least likely place. • Staychock: The road is eventually going to be expanded to four lanes. Excuse me for leaving the realm of natural resources. Overall, I look at this land swap; it's on the Poudre River and the Poudre River trail, it's a great opportunity for the City to work with CDOT. I support the recommendation, and will be voting for it. Natural Resources Advisory Board January 7, 2004 Page 9of10 • Donovan: Randy Fischer said he had concerns, but if it made sense he didn't have a problem. • Hart: When I look at this from a natural resource point of view it seems that we can manage access to the natural area. Mark and the crew are going to work hard to do that, and we get an important area in the river. We get the area south of the visitor center taken care of and cleaned up. In terms of people traveling from the rest area to College Avenue, it wont be significant. From a pure natural resource point of view, it's a tough call, but I think it's worth it. The motion carried with 5 votes in favor, one vote opposed (Arvind Panjabi), and two members abstaining (Nate Donovan and Glen Colton). Paradigm Drainage Eeasement, Mark Sears Sears said this is a drainage easement across a portion of the Resource Recovery Farm. There is no detrimental affect to the resources, no physical improvements. Dennis: The City will retain the right to move the easement at a future time, one time. There is some flexibility to do something else in the future with it. Panjabi: What is the City's intention for this piece of land? Sears: We purchased it for open land along I-25. It could be used for any number of things, composting facility, CSU would like to move their hort farm closer to Fort Collins, those are only two suggestions. Over the next few years we'll take a look and see what we feel would be appropriate. It's open space more than natural area. One use that is likely to occur is the hydrogen fuel experiment. They may lease the building for a couple years. Knowlton: Is this a no-brainer? • Sears: Yes Linda Knowlton made the following motion: Move that the Natural Resources Advisory Board recommend approval of this easement. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved. Boxelder Sanitation District Easement, Mark Sears Sears said the existing sewer line runs across Running Deer and Cottonwood Hollow. The pipe wasn't built in the easement that was acquired. This will reduce the acreage of the easement by 1.8 acres. We're going to try to put some of our standard natural area easement language in. Right now they have a prescriptive easement. Donovan: I feel uncomfortable approving something I don't know about. Sears: It looks like the existing sewer line will be under the future road right-of-way. It would be under the shoulder of the road. • Donovan: This looks even better now that I see it on a map. Ryan Staychock made the following motion: Move that the Natural Resources Advisory Board recommend to Council to approve the corrected deed while incorporating language according to the City's Natural Areas Easement Policy. Natural Resources Advisory Board January 7, 2004 Page 10 of 10 The motion was seconded by Arvind Panjabi and unanimously approved. -The January 21, 2004 work session was cancelled. -Clint Skutchan would like to be provided information about the Development Review Process that was available at earlier NRAB meetings. Council Six Month Planning Calendar Future Agenda Items: January 21(ws) Draft Air Quality Plan February 4: Running Deer Natural Area CE February 18: March 3: Nothing Scheduled March 17: Northern Integrated Supply Project, NoColoWater Conservancy District Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Submitted by Terry Klahn Admin Support Supervisor