Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 02/02/2005For Reference: MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE February 2, 2005 Nate Donovan, NRAB Chair - 472-1599 Eric Hamrick, Council Liaison - 225-2343 John Stokes, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Clint Skutchan, Jerry Hart, Nate Donovan, Randy Fischer, Ryan Staychock Board Members Absent Joann Thomas, Linda Knowlton, Glen Colton, Rob Petterson Staff Present Natural Resources Dept: Mark Sears, Terry Klahn, John Stokes, Edith Felchle, John Armstrong Guests Ann Hutchinson, Chamber of Commerce Ann Watson, Citizen Dennis Donnelly Jane Donnelly Carmen Urich Agenda Review Randy Fischer has a couple items he'd like to discuss under the "New Business" portion of the agenda. Public Comments None Approval of Minutes: The minutes of the January 5, 2005 meeting were unanimously adopted with the changes requested by Linda Knowlton. Resource Recovery Farm Lease, John Armstrong, Natural Resources Stokes said Council directed the Natural Areas Program to purchase the Resource Recovery Farm. Now we're looking for direction from Council as to what they want us to do with the property. What John Armstrong is talking about tonight is an eco-industrial park, ideas that are compatible with preserving open space. We'd like to do conceptual planning to share with you and later, City Council, and see what people think. This is something we'll come back to in greater detail in meetings coming forward. Natural Resources Advisory Board February 2, 2005 Page 2 of 7 John Amstrong provided background information on the Resource Recovery Farm and the proposed project. • Fischer: The Resource Recovery farm was included in the I-25 sub -area plan as open space. • Stokes: If you drive along the corridor it's nice. • Armstrong: Real Estate Services calculated the lease prices per year based on fair market value. The City Utilities will pay rent to the Natural Resources Department. • Fischer: I'm aware we're going to do a master planning for this site. One of my concerns is if we have a three year lease, will that constrain us in what we can do? Is this the highest and best use for this facility, and will that prevent us from doing other things? • Stokes: We don't know all of the answers. We haven't done a master plan for the property yet. When Norm and his group came it was about a year and a half ago. The City was intrigued by their proposal. From our perspective, these buildings have been empty for a long time. We didn't have anyone else clamoring to use or rent them. It's a neat project. My concern when we bought this was if we were buying a white elephant. We have no use for these enormous buildings and we're not good at managing them. 1 feel good that we'll put one of the buildings to use. • Stokes: There are three or four different broad -brush ideas for this site. • Skutchan: What about agricultural related activities? • Sears: CSU has expressed interest in moving their horticulture farm. John and 1 have a meeting with CSU about an irrigation experiment. • Hart: The raptor center talked about it. • Stokes: We think there are a lot of interesting possibilities for this property. This is an interim project. We thought it was appropriate. • Armstrong: In working with Frontline through the lease process we've been careful and Frontline has been flexible in knowing there might be additional uses that could be accommodated out there. We're looking to lease some storage space. Frontline is flexible should another use be identified that might utilize the entire space. We are trying to keep these things in perspective now, and as we embark in this process. • Hart: I don't perceive this to interfere with the long term planning. • Staychock: What's the potential Frontline could be there longer than three years? • Reese: It may be that we'd want to continue the lease. We love the site. • Staychock: How many people are employed? • Reese: We're looking at two to three. The purpose and the natural areas purposes are very much aligned. We want people to be able to enjoy the open areas and have an environment that supports open area. • Fischer: Who is responsible for the permits? What waste materials are there, and are there any hazardous by-products? How can we be sure there wont be something like coal gasification? • Reese: The company has been around for two years, it's licensed in the State of Colorado. We've been pretty much self -funded. We recently closed a deal with a Natural Resources Advisory Board February 2, 2005 Page 3 of 7 global energy project. We're glad to find a community that is supportive of hydrogen research. We'll meet with the fire safety people next week. We have talked with PFA, it's not a big issue, and it is a small flare that will burn really clean. There's very little residue that comes off this project . We're looking at new ways to clean the gas that comes out. The little ash that is produced is used as a soil amendment. • Armstrong: The lease is contingent on meeting current zoning, building and permitting requirements. • Fischer: Will this cost us anything? • Sears: We've agreed to clean the office and put in new carpet. • Donovan: Where does Utilities get the money to pay the lease? • Armstrong: I don't know for sure. • Fischer: It seems odd that they have that kind of money. • Skutchan: If there was another proper use, and they wanted to use the storage area, will that be ok? • Reese: If you guys need to rent this out, we'll come up with another solution. So far there hasn't been a concern. Ryan Staychock made the following motion: Move that the Natural Resources Advisory Board recommends that City Council pass an Ordinance granting Frontline BioEnergy the right to lease Office/Shop building located at the Resource Recovery Farm, as specified herein for the consideration of Twenty Thousand Three Hundred Thirty - Seven and 00/100 dollars ($20,337.00) for the first year, Twenty Thousand Nine Hundred Forty - Seven and 00/100 dollars ($20,947.00) for the second year and Twenty -One Thousand Five Hundred Seventy -Five and 00/100 dollars ($21,575.00) for the third year for leasing the above -mentioned shop/office area. The applicant will pay the City of Fort Collins for the leasing of the storage area in the amount of One Thousand and 00/100 dollars ($1,000.00). The motion was seconded by Clint Skutchan. • Fischer: What's the process for this to go to Council? • Armstrong: First reading is March 1, 2005. • Fischer: I think it's great, it's definitely compatible. My big concern is that we continue to have an organics recycling facility in Fort Collins. The future of the only commercial operation is uncertain. It sounds like this operation probably wouldn't preclude that in the future. I do have some concerns about the potential for environmental liability on the City's part as the result of an operation like this. I make my living doing environmental consulting work, and I have concerns about catalysts that are hazardous. There's nasty stuff that can come up. I'm supportive with the caveat that staff will be on top of this enough to make sure we're covered on things like that. Donovan: I echo Randy's comments. I was the board representative on the hydrogen task force. This kind of thing was something we were looking at. I'm excited to see it coming to fruition. The motion passed unanimously. Natural Resources Advisory Board February 2, 2005 Page 4 of 7 Fossil Creek Natural Areas Management Plans, Edith Felchle Felchle said this is basically what the NRAB looked at in November. We went to the public and got public comments. This management plan does not have to go to Council. We don't need a vote or action tonight. When we went to the public we had eighty people attend the two open houses. Just a handful of those made comments. In general most were fairly much in agreement with staff recommendations. This covers eleven city natural areas in the Fossil Creek drainage. There were a few who preferred to not have fumigation of prairie dogs in natural areas, a few wanted limited vegetation burning in short grass habitats, and some wanted no picnic shelters in natural areas. There were some who expressed a preference to wood fences instead of wire fences. Depending on what we hear tonight, and if staff needs to rethink the final proposed recommendations, we'll have another open house to show the public the final recommendations. We hope to have that in the next two to three weeks. Felchle said she'd like to start the review with Pelican Marsh, which seems to be the most controversial. A few people have mentioned concern about the placement of the trails so that they are not close to the homes. There were a few comments relative to burrowing owls and prairie dogs on the east side. We need to stress that the paved trail connector on the map that went to Carpenter Road is a transportation connector trail, and that it is only feasible if we can determine safe crossing of Carpenter. It would be irresponsible of us to take a busy street and say "good luck" getting across that street. • Donovan: Why would that be a paved trail versus a soft -surface trail? • Felchle: It would be proposed as a transportation connector. • Donovan: I don't understand. • Felchle: A big part of the transportation would be for school kids. If it makes sense to have the trails then we can look at if there is demand for it to be paved. • Felchle: Relative to a trail connection from Victoria Estates we mentioned that if its something the residents want they would need to identify some sort of place for that connection to happen. We're open to talking about it, but it would have to be in an appropriate place. • Felchle: The issue of real concern is Benson Reservoir. I've tried to stress up front, to you and the residents, we won't make a decision on that tonight or right now. We need more information to make that decision. There was a study in 1996 that looked at various options. We have gone back and looked at that study, as well as an analysis that we had a consultant look at. We did identify some things that were missing from that study. We have a lot of questions, lots of water rights and water storage right issues. We do need to clarify we do not have a choice of doing nothing. The dam has been unsafe for many years. We have to decommission the dam or rebuild it to a safe condition. The state engineer has been pretty patient up to now, but is getting impatient. The park that will be the connector will open in late 2006, we'd like the natural area to open at the same time. Our proposal right now is simply that we'd like to immediately get a consultant on board to get the additional information needed to make a well informed decision. It will cost quite a bit of money. Natural Resources Advisory Board February 2, 2005 Page 5 of 7 • Fischer: Is there any way of leasing out augmentation if we do rebuild the dam? Is there a way to make it a positive cash flow for us? • Felchle: That's a question 1 don't have the answer for right now. • Fisher: There's hardly any storage left for augmentation rights. • Felchle: The City of Fort Collins isn't that interested. They interested in using sites along the Poudre • Hart: What's the overall time period for the consultant, and will the folks who live around there have an opportunity for input? • Felchle: The good news is we have a qualified consultant on contract with the City. We want the consultants work to be done in the first half of this year. By the beginning of next year we hope to have a consultant to do the work. There will be a lot of outreach to the community. We'll probably put public outreach in the scope of work. • Hart: Any idea what the contract will run? • Felchle: No. • Sears: We've budgeted $100,000. • Hart: What's the issue with the wire fence? Don't we normally have buck and rail? • Felchle: Yes, in the past. The program is taking a change of direction on fencing. • Stokes: I can speak to that. When I got here we'd built a lot of buck and rail. The reason that style was favored is that esthetically, staff likes it, and for the birds. I was not 100% comfortable with that. Esthetically, I'm on the other side of that debate, and it's very expensive. I didn't feel the costs were justified. We still have a few places that we'll finish off in buck and rail where it was started, and where it makes sense for connections. In other locations we'll probably use smooth wire and we might use another style of wood fence. Going forward we'll use single rail, and we'll use wire. We have a couple different fencing options. • Sears: On Prospect Road at the two entrances we'll have approximately 50' of buck and rail on each side. It has become our signature fence and we want to keep that identity. Then we'll convert from that to the single rail. It maintains a lot of the same character, and 1/3 of the cost. • Fishher: I oppose the use of wire fencing. It's not compatible with my vision of the natural areas. You wouldn't believe the injuries we see, a fawn with its back leg torn almost off. I've complained about the woven wire for years and years. Parks is still using it. • Stokes: Any wire fence would be built to wildlife compatible standards. It would be high enough for antelope to run under, and low enough for a deer to run over. • Donovan: How's the stockpile of fencing materials that we used a couple years ago. • Sears: We have a huge stockpile of the non -treated wood. The rails are the same, but instead of a buck we use a fence post. • Skutchan: hi here it says "our reservoir". I don't think you have to worry about the effects on the costs of the homes nearby. The prairie dog aspect. Is there going to a cost assessment if we have to do a removal program. If you do take the dam out will that change the area where the prairie dogs are? • Felchle: Your question is a good one. Natural Resources Advisory Board February 2, 2005 Page 6 of 7 • Sears: If the dam went away we'd love to make this area wetland. We have to maintain the amount of wetland that is there right now. Our desire would be to keep the dam and reservoir as they are. As Edith pointed out there may be regulations or costs that may not allow that. • Skutchan: It looks like that soil is fairly absorbent. • Sears: From a stormwater aspect that needs to be looked at. Stormwater made a mention that we needed to keep that dam there. • Felchle: These are good questions to make sure the consultants come up with all of the answers. • Skutchan: I'd be interested to see what the NRAB had to say in the previous studies. • Felchle: At the time there was more of a wetland approach. • Watson (audience): All of us have lived there for many years. We've been there through the whole process. At a meeting in 1996 when they met with the neighbors the augmentation water rights were considered a real asset for the City at that time. We were led to believe they are an asset for the natural area too. At that time we had another neighbor who had been on the board for the ditch company and he knew a lot of about the water rights. I think the information must be out there for staff to get. I would also have a question of if this area is considered part of the integrated wetland management plan, or is it a thorn in the side of staff. • Sears: Well, it's not a thorn in our side. We spent a lot of money to acquire that site. We would like to retain as much of the resource value as possible. We named the site Pelican Marsh. We wouldn't want to have to change the name because there were no pelicans or a marsh. • Donnelly (audience): The birds are beautiful. • Watson: I have kept logs. We have fewer migratory birds. It's not as efficient as it was. It used to be a feeding area. • Donnelly (audience): Having lived there for 30-some years, what you're doing is so vastly superior and beautiful to previous plans, more power to you. The wildlife is using our pasture, there are choruses of coyotes. We're on your side. I think your goal is to answer these questions and get as much information as possible and figure out what different possible directions this could take. • Skutchan: How far out would you project on something like this, O/M costs? • Sears It's tough to do projections past ten years. • Donovan: I support the idea of collecting information. I have concerns about trail designs. We need to keep in mind we purchased this for wildlife habitat. The closer the trails get, the use it was purchased for is destroyed. We need to consider how we deal with user access and vehicles. • Felchle: We are assuming the park is the access • Donovan: I have a philosophical problem with private access to public spaces. • Sears: In Victoria Estates, it would have to be a public access. • Donovan: There are public access points to Fossil Creek trail west of Taft, but there's no parking anywhere near. There can be opportunities for picnicking in natural areas that don't have to be as inviting as having shelters. If we put in shelters, we're inviting the trash problems. Natural Resources Advisory Board February 2, 2005 Page 7 of 7 • Felchle: Thanks to the residents for coming. • Hart: A lot of these areas aren't open to the public. If its going to open we need to let them know what kind of public access there is, and when it will open. • Felchle: This is the first step. • Skutchan: My wife has a day care. The kids like the shelters to get out of the weather, like what is at CFP. New Business • Fischer: The article about the Rocky Mountain Butterfly plant at Meadow Springs Ranch was interesting. • Fischer: After the last meeting I thought maybe we should have some ground rules for public participation during an agenda item. Maybe a little more structure so the board doesn't get into a conversation with the people who are here. Maybe we should give people 3-5 minutes so say their piece. • Staychock: That's appropriate, there was an uncomfortable part at the last meeting. • Donovan: We talked about that. With Council there's no interaction. For myself, I wouldn't want it to be adversarial, but I think it helps the process if we're able to interact. • Fischer: I'm more concerned about how long we go on, I don't mind the interaction. We need to manage the flow and put limits on how long we go. • Skutchan: Anything on the board's role, and how it will be implemented in the development review process? • Stokes: I think it got continued. Announcements • Stokes: We closed on the Krafczik property. • Sears: We received a $97,000 grant to restore the Nix barn. Committee Reports Solid Waste Reduction: There will be a presentation at our next meeting, and to Council on single stream recycling and two bills in the legislature dealing with solid waste. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Submitted by Terry Klahn Admin Support Supervisor