Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 07/21/2004MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD SPECIAL MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE July 21, 2004 For Reference: Nate Donovan, NRAB Chair - 472-1599 Eric Hamrick, Council Liaison - 225-2343 John Stokes, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Linda Knowlton, Jerry Hart, Glen Colton, Nate Donovan, Randy Fischer, Rob Petterson Board Members Absent Ryan Staychock, Clint Skutchan, Joann Thomas Staff Present Natural Resources Dent: Terry Klahn, John Stokes, Karen Manci, Doug Moore Park Planning: Craig Foreman CLRS: Marty Heffernan, Stephanie Van Dyken Guests Roger Sherman, BHA Design Russell Lee, BHA Design Earl Ray, ACT, Inc. Joyce Ray, ACT, Inc. Browne McGraw, ACT, Inc. Approval of Minutes: With the following change the minutes of the June 2, 2004, meeting were unanimously adopted. • Nate Donovan: Correct the date in the header information Agenda Review Felix Lee will not be here for the Update on the Energy Code. The GOCO Grant Application agenda item will be moved to first on the agenda. GOCO Grant Application, John Stokes • Stokes informed the board that Council ratified the new building code, which includes passive radon, last night. Natural Resources was pretty involved in the discussion and formulation of the radon policy. It was the passive system that was approved. • Stokes informed the board that the Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan sailed through Council on consent. • The appropriation for COPS was on consent and was pulled by a citizen. In the end it passed with a unanimous 6/0 vote. Natural Resources Advisory Board July21, 2004 Page 2 of 8 Stokes said the City has been working with the County and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) on this GOCO grant application. We've been lobbying for quite a while and we were selected to be in the next round which has been narrowed down to twenty (20) organizations. The County and TNC are taking the lead. It's very complicated. I would like the board to consider submitting a letter of recommendation and support. We've already received a great letter from the mayor. I could draft something if you would like. We're asking for $11 million to acquire the Red Mountain Ranch, which is next to Soapstone. I'm hoping that over time GOCO will give us more money to flush out other potential projects in the area. Randy Fischer made the following motion: Move that chair of the Natural Resources Advisory Board draft a letter of support for the GOCO grant application. Glen Colton seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6/0). Spring Canyon Community Park, Craig Foreman Foreman provided background information regarding the purchase of the property, and pointed out some of the features of the land. He also introduced three people from an organization, All Children Together, Inc. (ACT, Inc.), that would like to partner with the City to design and build a playground that is fully accessible for children with disabilities. Roger Sherman, BHA Design, and Russell Lee, also from BHA Design, explained three different park design options, and the major differences between the options. • Fischer: Can you please explain the different locations of the dog park? • Sherman: In one case its very close to where it is today, and in another its very close but larger. There's been talk about incorporating a pond. In the third option it's moved completely up north. • Petterson: What are the lighted, versus non -lighted options? • Sherman: The roller hockey, basketball and tennis courts are lighted in all three options. There's one plan that includes lighted baseball fields. • Foreman: We want to see where it fits in. It's still in the hopper. (Foreman showed photos of the lights at Fossil Creek Community Park). • Knowlton: You must not be certain there is a demand. • Foreman: Technology -wise the new lighting system is good. • Knowlton: What are the purple areas? • Sherman: The idea is for a floral display of some type, maybe native wild flowers. It's a garden area that could be used for many different things. • Knowlton: Why is there so much area that needs to be irrigated and mowed? Why do you need so much? Natural Resources Advisory Board July 21, 2004 Page 3 of 8 • Sherman: Historically parks were not focused around athletics, they focused around cultural activities. There are spaces for activities that don't include hitting a ball, or having a programmed activity. The more natural turfs do not take traffic well. We need to balance maintenance with the ability to use the park. I think we've done a pretty job of that. • Knowlton: You can't do buffalo grass? • Foreman: It's fescue. We've learned that its important for the community to have an area where you can spread out. It's important to get away from the activities such as baseball and soccer. • Sherman: We're going to have a pretty good balance to support the activities we need. We've tried hard to get that balance. • Ray: What about the mountain lions? • Colton: Would mountain lions come in with this many programmed areas? • Foreman: We've had a black bear at City Park. We would want to work with the school district, and have shorter gasses. • Colton: What's the connection to Fossil Creek Trail? • Sherman: They will connect in the hub of Spring Creek Trail, Pineridge Trail, and Fossil Creek Trail. • Sherman: At the current connection to the trailhead for Pineridge parking is allowed in the dirt road area. As this becomes more formalized our thought is that maybe trailhead parking would end and we would try to restore that area. We might have a footpath, but not the ability to drive. • Foreman: We've found that most of our customers stay on site. They probably won't be going up into the natural area. We've watched Lee Martinez Park. Hopefully we won't impact Pineridge with a bunch of new people. • Moore: It's something we'll have to pay attention to and figure out. • Stokes: Is that trail connection mountain bike accessible now? • Sherman: Yes. • Colton: The maintenance facility is close to the natural area. How much use will it get? • Donovan: What kinds of vehicles will be there? • Sherman: There's already an irrigation pump house. We like the idea of clustering the utility uses in one spot. • Foreman: There will be a crew chief and two or three employees, plus maybe a couple seasonal employees. It will just be staff, there won't be any public access. • Moore: It's limited access. Different building styles and materials can be used that will blend and hide the facility from view. The LUC holds them to fit in or blend in with the surrounding environment. • Fischer: The one at Fossil Creek looks like a two story building. • Foreman: They have to be about fourteen (14) feet to run equipment in, and have heaters. We have about 100 to 150 cubic yards of material we can use to berm, and make elevation changes. • Knowlton: Would you indicate on each plan how far into the park vehicles would get? How much of this vegetation is currently there? Are you removing any trees? Natural Resources Advisory Board July21, 2004 Page 4of8 • Sherman: (Sherman pointed out the routes on the three different plans) New growth trees will be planted in with the mature trees to ensure that as the mature trees die off there will be new trees to take their places. • Colton: With the City's budget, and the possibility of sales tax eliminations, I'm concerned this will bring on high maintenance costs. hi the future we may have to cut costs. How does this look in terms of maintenance? • Heffernan: It's a big concern. The funding sources to build our parks come from new growth. New residential units pay impact fees. This is the first park we're building with those fees. The fees are designed and based on growth in the community. There's an obligation to spend the money and provide the parks. We have to work in a reasonable time frame. Theoretically as the population grows the tax revenues grow. As we know the whole region is changing. We're losing dominance as a retail center. We have new people, but collections are not as robust. It's a difficulty. We have to build the system, and how will we maintain it? If the sales tax on food is removed that will create a problem. City Council has asked me to come up with a park that's less costly to maintain. They're asking for different ways to approach funding. We've looked at a park maintenance fee, similar to a fee on utility bills. It's based on the theory that everyone enjoys a park system. There are other ways. We'll look at new revenue sources. Another option is to reduce park maintenance. The level of service will go down. • Knowlton: Have you looked at user fees? • Heffernan: We have them for special uses. We're going to a program where we ask the users to do more maintenance, and be more cognizant on how they use the facility. We do charge rental fees for tournaments to cover our costs. Our field rental fees are getting to where we're too expensive. We're working through those issues. It's cheaper in Loveland, and its cheaper in Windsor. • Knowlton: User fees are more equitable than a parks maintenance fee. • Colton: I see there is a BMX track. What about the one at Edora? • Foreman: We'd take it out of Edora. We're trying to help Edora Park out. • Colton: Do we charge people when they use the lights at night? • Foreman: We don't charge. • Colton: What are the tradeoffs for the different road designs? • Sherman: There are tradeoffs. They're designed to access the activities. We're trying to be sensitive so they're not a big physical barrier. The trade off is access versus inaccessibility. • Knowlton: Why does option two have the lights, and options one and three don't? • Sherman: When we met with the sports alliance there was a strong feeling for the need of lights. • Foreman: They are saying its important to have lights. • Colton: When Fossil Creek Park went in they looked at sharing ball fields with the school district. How did that work out? It would be nice if they could partner. • Heffernan: We share your sentiment. There are different budget issues. • Fischer: I've been working with the neighborhood group for the last four years. I've tried to have a good relationship with staff. We developed our own design. One of Natural Resources Advisory Board July 21, 2004 Page 5 of 8 the things I have to admit I'm disturbed about is, it seems to me like this is a cookie cutter approach. We've been trying to get people to understand the requirements of this site. There isn't another site like this in Fort Collins. There are unique natural features. Essentially there isn't another site like it in the City, it's really a gem. It's really too bad that we have to look at this park's design in terms of how many ball fields or tennis courts to put in. I'm not opposed to the sports thing. But, I saw this location as an opportunity for the City to do something that was outstanding and different. Why do we look at it as an area where we'll just put more of the same in? It's beyond me, and it's frustrating. At the first public meeting that was held the results of the comments are posted on the website. There were four (4) people who expressed interest in a BMX track. That's out of over one hundred people. Youth baseball got three dots. Yet, we're designing the park to focus on those things. To me the natural part of the park is lost. There's barely a remnant of it left. Those roads go one-half mile into the park. That's one of the things that will have a huge impact on the neighborhood. It's an attractive nuisance. People will be partying in back yards. The lighted ball field is not only the visual pollution, but also the 70 or 80 feet towers. Those light towers will tower over peoples roofs. I had really hoped that input from the tour, and peoples input from the open house would have been taken more seriously. It hasn't had any impact. I'm surprised that with the $850,000 budget for design there couldn't be more creativity. 102 people said they didn't want lighted ball fields. Not a single person expressed a like for lighted fields. It reinforces what the neighbors have said. "What's the use? The City will just do what they want to do anyway." Heffernan: I have to take issue with that. We're just starting the public process. We have a need to hear from the broader community. We have heard from many user groups. To have an effective public process we have to have that option. The issue with the process is a sensitive one. Fischer: It's hard to get the people in the neighborhood motivated. They say the City will do what they want anyway. When you have public input, and then look at these designs it reinforces that opinion. We have people on our group that actually are members of the Sports Alliance. I had real hopes this would be something that would enhance the value to the community and Pinewood Natural Area. This is a destination from all over the city. No matter how early you get up there are dozens of people out there recreating already. There needs to be very little done in terms of development to make this an incredible park site that people would love to come to for recreation. We're missing a huge opportunity. Knowlton: Other than the open house, what public input have you had? Heffernan: We've got a big process ahead of us. We heard from the neighborhood at the open house. We have discussed this with P&R, their input will be critical. There are a variety of facilities on the park site. We have had a number of citizens interested in the park design. They've brought in their concerns. When you have a design for people to react to is when the process gets going. It is a community park. It is our obligation to hear the whole community's voice. This will be on the web site. There will be two or three more open houses. We're trying to hear from the whole community. It's not that we're not listening. Natural Resources Advisory Board July 21, 2004 Page 6 of 8 • Donovan: Are you taking it to public facilities? • Heffernan: There's a board at the EPIC, and at the library. • Sherman: The Coloradoan will do an article also. • Colton: These all have similar elements. Maybe what's lacking is an option with a lot less elements. Should there be another alternative that shows much less program elements, lighted ball fields, roller hockey, etc. If I was a basketball player I'd go to Rolland Moore. • Fischer: You're right. The alternatives are all really the same thing. You're asking for a choice between "do you like the ball fields here or there"? • Heffernan: We've considered if two ball fields is enough. Some options show three ball fields. It's difficult to strike a balance. You can tell from what was proposed in 1995 that these plans represent a much different approach. We're trying to be sensitive to the site, and we think we've built that into it. If we go much further into taking facilities out of the park, we undermine our responsibility to deliver a community park. I understand Randy has a different opinion. • Petterson: You're not willing to put a 4t' alternative up with fewer elements? • Heffernan: We can discuss it with the P&R board. • Donovan: I understand your point of needing to provide a community park. It's a matter of definition. At least an option with fewer elements would be something for people to react to. Now they don't have a concept that there is another way to do a community park. • Heffernan: We would have to make sure that concept met our responsibility to provide a community park. • Donovan: What a park planner thinks of as recreational facilities could be different from someone who doesn't have the mindset of what a developed park is. • Hart: What we have here right now is really one alternative. Maybe we need a couple more alternatives, give people an option. • Moore: Does your guidance come from the Parks Master Plan? • Heffernan: Yes, we are guided by the Master Plan. • Colton: Wouldn't Fossil Ridge be the more logical place to put more facilities? • Foreman: We have to look at fairness across the whole community. • Fischer: People out by the SE Community Park should have the expectation there's going to be a park. There are huge lights everywhere, artificial turf. This is not, it's a hayfield. In the context of the surrounding areas and the view sheds, why do that to a place like this? It doesn't make sense. I'd hoped we'd take the blinders off, and go for a national award winning park design where we can tout this area as something that is truly unique. It falls way short of my expectations. Your attitude reinforces that idea that you folks know best what a community park is. Heffernan: We have a responsibility. We know what the user groups are looking for. If we minimize that more we will not meet the recreational needs of the community. Fischer: You're saying that the people who recreate in organized sports are the only ones who recreate. If you go out there any time of day you'll see two hundred people out there recreating. They'll be from one to one -hundred years old. I'm very pro- Natural Resources Advisory Board July 21, 2004 Page 7 of 8 park. I just think we can develop it into something that would be suitable for everyone to recreate in. • Heffernan: We do think it provides a nice balance. There are very large areas of non - programmed turf. There are nice places to walk and nice places for non -sports related things. It's our feeling that we're meeting that need. When soccer areas are not being use for soccer, it's a non -programmed space. All of the hard-scape is very minimal. There are large tracks that are untouched. I think we're providing a nice experience for the community. • Donovan: I encourage as little development as possible west of the Spring Creek corridor. Respect a buffer along the corridor. • Colton: Will the baseball fields be ones where there will be tournaments? • Foreman: They will be used for some tournaments. • Heffernan: Two fields don't really lend themselves for tournaments. Rolland -Moore will more likely be used for tournaments. We will be losing tournament play to Loveland and Windsor because our fees are so high. It's not out of the picture that some tournament use might occur, but it's not a good facility for that. • Colton: I would like to see an option with no ball fields for the public to see. We have to meet the community needs, but can't it be met in such a way that its met in other parts of the City, as opposed to ball parks in every place? • Knowlton: I agree it would be nice to have a wider range of options, some real choices. • Hart: The southeast and southwest is where the growth is going. Will people drive to the far western part of town? • Knowlton: I look forward to seeing your plan for public process. I hope you can get more of the community involved in commenting on these options. • Fischer: Will the drawings be on the web? • Foreman: Yes, hopefully sometime next week. Committee Reports Solid Waste Committee: Talked about proposed changes to the Land Use Code to require multi -family housing units to provide space for recycling. NRD staff will come to the full board in August or September with their proposal. Announcements Colton: Did you know about the bind weed mite for controlling bindweed? I received a free sample and will let you know how it does. Future Agenda Items August 4: Changes to the Development Review Process Community Separtors Report August 18: Devil's Backbone Mgmt Plan Riverbend Ponds Flood Improvement Update Stormwater Detention Ponds at the Coterie Natural Area Parking Lots — Conceptual Design Natural Resources Advisory Board July 21, 2004 Page 8 of 8 • Fischer: There are several stormwater projects that have me concerned. We need to have the stormwater folks come to a meeting and hash over some of these issues. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Submitted by Terry Klahn Admin Support Supervisor