Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 07/06/2005MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD Regular Meeting 281 N. COLLEGE July 6, 2005 For Reference: Nate Donovan, NRAB Chair - 472-1599 Ben Manvel, Council Liaison - 217-1932 John Stokes, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Linda Knowlton, Glen Colton, Nate Donovan, Randy Fischer, Ryan Staychock, Clint Skutchan Board Members Absent Joann Thomas, Rob Petterson, Gerry Hart Staff Present Natural Resources Dept: John Armstrong, John Stokes, Susie Gordon, Tamara Courtney Guests Ann Hutchinson, Chamber of Commerce Agenda Review: The Board members agreed to schedule a special meeting on July 20, 2005 to thoroughly discuss the 2003-2005 Council Policy Agenda. Review and Approval of Minutes: June 1, 2005 —The minutes of the June 1, 2005 meeting were unanimously approved as written. Resource Recovery Park, John Armstrong The final daft will be due in a week to 10 days. John Armstrong spoke about the bio energy update and changes to budgetary process with regard to the Resource Recovery Park. He clarified the possible access roads and improvements along Prospect Road and talked about the CDOT project which will break ground in 2006. This project will widen the interchange area. Scenarios discussed for the Resource Recovery Park were "Scenario 1-restoration", "Scenario 2- low intervention" (minor development), "Scenario 3- medium intensity use" (moderate development), and "Scenario 4- higher intensity use" (commercial development). There is current expectation to present this topic at a City Council work session scheduled for August 9`h, 2005. • Donovan: Is there much potential or need for greater access south of the access road, adjacent to I-25? Natural Resources Advisory Board July 6, 2005 Page 2 of 10 • Armstrong: I haven't seen, nor did the consultant come back with, anything that suggests that there will be much development of this access road. The road terminates at the Archery range. Given all of the physical constraints, the river and I- 25, and the amount of distance that needs to be between them means there will be no need to develop or upgrade this any further. Unless, it were for safety. There is no official way to connect the frontage road to the access road. • Gordon: Is the Archery Range for sale? • Armstrong: That is a very good question. • John: I can't remember if it was a City or County ownership pattern in there, but I think the County owns a big piece of it. It is all a part of the open space development. • Gordon: Not for sale? • Stokes: No. • Fischer: It sounds to me like someone could sell off a part of this interchange and then how much would the commercial developers make, and would it be easy to get answers? • Armstrong: It is negligible. We don't have the final figures yet. It may be more qualitative at this juncture given the scope of this part of the project. The initial estimates vary, because they have done work and decided that it would be a small percentage. • Donovan: It sounds to me like we would be upgrading the access road. • Stokes: No, but maybe an indirect contribution, because if you make it more feasible to develop, as an example that road and/or any other facilities, it might make additional revenue for somebody. So I think there may be an indirect influence. • Armstrong: If you sell off that strip it just allows for more opportunity for someone to spread those amounts around. • Stokes: Usually when we own property on one or both sides of a road we avoid that whole issue around road improvements because we are not developing our projects. But if the person across the road is developing then there is a problem because there will be an impact. • Knowlton: On this map it shows that the area south of the access road could be sold off. • Stokes: Yes- it could be commercial on both sides of the road. • Armstrong: The maps in your packets are black and white and I knew they would be hard to read. I will make sure that you receive updated information in your packets. • Staychock: Does the City have a propagation plan? Do you plan to buy seeds? • Stokes: There aren't any local companies. I will have to check with Rick on where to get native seed? We try to get as close as we can, but sometimes you can't find it. • Armstrong: This map shows that this area has been upgraded. • Donovan: What you are saying is that it looks like there is a likelihood that it will be upgraded or widened past the eastern most point. • Armstrong: It is difficult at this juncture to promise anything. , but there is no where to go. It dead -ends in the Archery Range. There is a setback limit from 1-25 that will provide physical restraints. • Donovan: I was asking because the concept map appears to show a wider road. Natural Resources Advisory Board July 6, 2005 Page 3 of 10 • Stokes: What I was going to say after going through the maps and lines, is what makes sense to staff is scenario 2 and 3. Scenario 4 is not as attractive to us for a lot of reasons. A mixture of 2 and 3 seem to make sense as it conserves the essential minutia. We have a big shop and houses which is unusual for Natural Area programs. Usually we have to remove the structures and replant the area. Here we inherited these commercial buildings and my concern when we were asked to buy this was what we would do with these large commercial buildings. That is why we came to the realization to ask Council what they think we should do, as they asked us to buy it. Even if we were to change it with Scenario 2 and 3 those buildings would still be pretty much invisible so we can conserve the original minutia. • Skutchan: If you cede the property to the North, will you be able to use the facilities to not only enhance the environment, but also to act as a buffer as something to staunch commercial space? • Stokes: If it is decided to use the buildings we would write our protection standards to it, so I think that the answer is yes. • Skutchan: I see that as a possible positive as you use that feathering effect so it is not so stark. Is the topography such that you could blend much like it has been done with the larger building that blends with the environment? • Armstrong: If you look at the shop/office that is a two story building you perceive how difficult it is to see. But once you see how they work you can maintain the view - shed. It feels like a very interesting opportunity. • Skutchan: I guess why I am asking is not to drive businesses in there, but to get back to the point of education. Last time we had talked about using this as an education center piece for research programs. There are some aspects of Scenario 4 that could make sense, obviously there is a sense that we are adding to development, but if used appropriately it could enhance the layout. • Armstrong: That is a good point. Thanks for bringing up the educational component. It could be a way of tying these things all together. • Fischer: Would commercial zoning work in a POL (Public Open lands)? Shops or stores? • Stokes: No, not under this zoning. There might be some types such as composting and sale of compost that could occur. Stores couldn't happen. • Knowlton: When you talk about your "Budgeting for Outcomes" which alternative is that? How would staff time be allocated? • Stokes: This is being sold as needing more time for research before bringing it to Council. We may need to think about leasing out these structures for resource recovery. Or possibly needing a planner to work on scenario 3 and 4. If we don't get money for it- we won't have a person. It is in limbo right now. Maybe we could rent out the shed and reseed. Staff would like to see these buildings used. Selling them for salvage is another possibility. We are trying to get an idea from Council. • Fischer: You are taking this to Council for informational purposes? • Stokes: We would like guidance from council on how to proceed. This is fundamentally different from our other properties as it is part of the 1-25 corridor. Natural Resources Advisory Board July 6, 2005 Page 4 of 10 Council had told us not to sell it and to use it for view shed conservation. We know that our primary goal is as a view shed and we are seeking ideas to manage it. • Skutchan: What is the real agricultural value of leasing those fields- leading to scenario 2? • Armstrong: That depends- there have been some discussions with CSU for experimental agriculture. They've done some very speculative bio-field crops and that kind of thing. • Skutchan: They would be targeted more for a resource kind of thing? • Stokes: As a production site —no, but as a research site it has value. CSU has expressed interest in using in it in the past. • Skutchan: That lends itself more to scenario 3. • Armstrong: I am going to wrap up and finish on the BFO related topic so you know what went in that offer. Two components that we proposed were important parts of our waste stream: organics and construction/demolition. We talked about hiring an official composter to run a government drop off site. We have spoken to Research 2000 in Boulder, an architectural/research center to help them possibly find a place here. This uses existing structures and allows us to lease out the space. They are a nonprofit that has already received sufficient funding to establish in the Fort Collins area. • Stokes: They remarket the materials. As an example, I take down some 2x4s and take it down there and make a donation, they give me a receipt as a tax write-off and they can remarket the materials and resale them for 40 cents on the dollar. They have been very successful. • Fischer: How would this work long term? Would they have a year-to-year lease? • Stokes: I haven't talked to them, but anyone who does a year-to-year will want a piece of it. No one will want a year-to-year as that won't work with a business model. • Skutchan: Does this fit with the other scenarios? • Stokes: It could, it seems to makes sense. Especially the whole notion of resource recovery at that site. If we can cluster these different businesses there: resource conservation, a commercial station handling yard waste, and a transfer station. Those are all nice businesses that go together and work toward our City policy objective of 50% diversion of waste. It has nice synergy. It makes money and thrives while taking care of issues for us. • Armstrong: Fort Collins is in a similar situation as Boulder, of starting cottage industries to redevelop. We are strategically intercepting that material and keeping it out of the landfill. • Stokes: hi addition to John's last slide — we may not want to hire an operator, but we want a public space for them to operate a transfer station. A way for them to make money while it pays us a fee. • Colton: So what is the secret to getting them to curbside haul it away? Do we have people who will haul it? I heard that Gallegos Sanitation does it? • Armstrong: In some neighborhoods. • Gordon: They are hauling to Eaton. • Donovan: You are envisioning. Natural Resources Advisory Board July 6, 2005 Page 5 of 10 • Gordon: He brings up a good point, in that if we ever want to ask the haulers to do curbside pick up of yard waste, not just one but all of them, they will need a legitimate and reasonable place to take it. • Stokes: That doesn't have to be the only place that can occur. It could occur on our proprietor land fill or the dump as an option. Getting a transfer station is what is important. • Skutchan: If you do something like that will it force you to use the structure for that? • Stokes: Yeah, I have thought carefully about that. We would need to fix the road, or someone would need to fix it. • Armstrong: That would be the next stage in that process. If we move on the master plan process and start essentially programming the site we will be looking at all the big pieces. • Skutchan: If you are looking ahead in the commercial sale of that property how would you handle that? • Armstrong: Boxelder Sanitation already handles some level of commercial grade - whether it is scaled or transition will be the kind of questions we need to get at in the next phase. • Colton: There are similar types of non -profits out there. • Skutchan: It would be a pretty good tool because it will also be near that visitor center. It is a nice center piece that will allow you to display what you are doing in the community. • Stokes: One of the things we need to think about in terms of transportation is that there could be problems if we are running heavy trucks by there. Or, building a hotel or visitor center with trucks in and out of there. These are considerations that we haven't gone through. It is all conceptual right now. • Fischer: That is why it should be funded by Budgeting for Outcomes. The big truck issues. There will have to be a lot of traffic. • Donovan: What is the lease for Frontline? • Armstrong: It is actually a two year lease. The Frontline lease was approved in March 2005, because we talked about it in February. Since then they have gotten down to business and have been working on a prototype gassifier. Again the whole point of the street search is looking at the feasibility of using biomass specifically to convert it to hydrogen- very cutting edge stuff. A lot of the gassification process will occur at the Iowa University. Kind of a tag team between this site and Iowa State as they see if they can fine tune the this process. I prepped them with the idea of some of us visiting them out there in early Fall and we can bring the results back. Are any of you interested in visiting? • Donovan: Sure. • Donovan: I am most comfortable in scenario 2 and 3. • Colton: We need to figure out the maximum of what can be put in there without destroying and ruining the view shed.. • Donovan: I-25 is seen as a good plan but the set backs are a joke- it will look like one of those 80 foot setbacks. Just crazy. Natural Resources Advisory Board July 6, 2005 Page 6 of 10 Fischer: I really appreciate the work being put in this. I am concerned about following scenario 4. To me, designating those as natural areas is not compatible with real- estate developers. We wouldn't have control if it goes to commercial developers. I would oppose the Natural Areas Program getting involved in commercial development where we could lose control. Sell the property and there would be multi -story apartment buildings. Let's not sow the seeds for this. It is inappropriate to bringing this forth. I strongly support scenario 2 and 3. It was my original idea when I supported this project earlier. My recommendation would be to pull scenario 4 from the whole presentation. Knowlton: I agree. • Skutchan: I would like to go back to the point I raised earlier. I think that you will want to keep it zoned as is, so it compatible with commercial use. There is some value to the educational aspect if done properly. Don't throw it out altogether, but neither go out and push the building of convenience stores right next to it. The educational facility could be the buffer between those areas and the activities that are going to be next to it. • Donovan: I think it is important that we make a recommendation about this to Council. I would be interested in seeing the report and putting it on the Aug 3`d agenda so we can pick it up. Can it be made available electronically? • Armstrong: It can be available as high resolution PDF/electronic. Is that agreeable? • Knowlton: I won't be able to look at the map, but I would like to see the words. • Armstrong: I will do whatever people are interested in doing. • Donovan: Thanks a lot. • Stokes: Thanks for all of your feedback. Building on Basics (BOB), Nate Donovan • Donovan: The question is do we want to comment on the Council's priorities and suggest other possible projects? The memorandum and chart with Council priorities states they must have it done by Sept 15, 2005. • Skutchan: I guess I struggle to see what value we can add at this level. I don't understand in what context the Board would be addressing it. • Knowlton: There are things I don't like here, but from a NRAB standpoint it is mute. • Fischer: I like the River Habitat Restoration. That was the reason I wanted to put it on [the agenda]- but from what I understand it is off the list. • Colton: What happened? • Stokes: Yes it is off. I don't think that it was a priority for the Council, and they needed to address other issues. There was some question of whether Natural Areas could fund that. We could fund some but not all of it, such as stabilization and flood control. That is not related to our purpose. We are not concerned about this and are comfortable with it off the list. hi some ways it is better with it off the list, because we can step back and take a look. We will probably do some restoration near the oxbow and northern levy in August. But the plans they had for that were pretty Natural Resources Advisory Board July 6, 2005 Page 7 of 10 extensive. Given all the other needs right now, Council thought it wasn't rising to the top of the list. We are very comfortable with that. • Donovan: Do we want to comment on the trails or not? • Fischer: I am not familiar with Troutman or what is on the list. If something is not on the list, I guess we miss that. We are a bit late, but if there were some way to add the Fossil Creek Trail and Cathy Fromme Prairie. There is a major roadblock, obstacle, for completing the Fossil Creek trail over College. • Stokes: Yeah. We are building under College. Colton: I brought that up with Craig and he said "We'll start looking at this next year." • Fischer: We aren't even on the list. • Colton: When is a bicycle program planned? • Stokes: I don't know. • Hutchinson: They don't know what they are going to do with those yet. • Donovan: It looks like they took Clint's advice from the last minutes and the Bicycle Coordinator to study the participation- so maybe that it what that is. Would it be helpful to identify the need? • Donovan: Should we leave the Habitat Restoration alone? • Colton: It came out as a major campaign issue- everyone was talking about it. It was brought before Gallegos who said some of that money could be used for river restoration. I am waiting to see. It seemed like we would need money from a few different sources, EPA, Natural Areas ...something. I'm waiting to see what they do. • Donovan: Anyone want to make a motion? • Colton: I move that we restore west of the plant, the Red Tail to Fossil Creek section. • Fischer: I second the motion • Skutchan: Are we just interjecting our personal opinions on this? What are we looking at? What are we trying to get at with Board review? • Donovan: It is in the jurisdiction of the Board to recommend to Council that it, and possibly habitat restoration, be placed back on the list. • Skutchan: It would be voicing support for those? • Donovan: Yes. Maybe that would be a good thing to do, or maybe not worth it to do. • Staychock: This is a tax, and I don't know if I feel comfortable asking them to raise taxes for those things. • Fischer: My hesitation about the Cache la Poudre is that we have tax means for natural areas. But my understanding is that we don't have money for stabilization. I am surprised with all the emphasis on the development of that part of downtown that we have tax money to spend, but not money for the work. It is surprising that with the emphasis on the river that it didn't make the cut. Since we have had our funding source, Jefferson to the river has looked the same and change will be slow in coming if the river bank problem is not solved. It would be better to work as a team, the habitat piece with the stabilization piece. We would be able to do the stream bank stabilization section with retaining walls. • Colton: Was the $4.5 million with the Cadillac plans in those different scenarios? Natural Resources Advisory Board July 6, 2005 Page 8 of 10 Stokes: No, he wanted us to do a Cadillac restoration from Linden all the way to Mulberry, but that is a huge project. In the first round, we wanted a line item to do some of that work, but staff said that no one will support that and lets try to achieve bank stabilization and restoration and diverse ecology. At this point, I talked to Mark [Sears] about it and it is our sense it is better to wait. There may be private development that probably will have to contribute to that stabilization work. That is way off. hi the ecology of the project we could get a big bang for our buck. What we don't want is for all of the burden to be placed on the Natural Areas Programs. If we were asked to provide 3-4 %2 million it would gut all of our budget for the program for 10 years. We think we should step back and wait for private development and do modest restoration. That is our perspective - it is probably a good idea to take a step back. DDA may be a partner in that, combined with Utilities moneys. So if, or when, we do a substantial project of stabilization we will have to pool from different sources- it is lot of money. • Knowlton: We have a motion on the table. How should it be worded to include this particular thing? • Colton: We support this and recommend this as a possible use of public funds. • Donovan: I was going to make a call to learn a little about that from the temporary Bicycle Coordinator. • Colton: To use that underpass in the trail connection at Fossil Creek east of College. • Donovan: I thought we were talking about Cathy Fromme trail. Are we talking just about the underpass? • Colton: We are talking about both. • Donovan: Under the rail road crossing? • Colton: Under College. • Knowlton: We don't know what the plan is. We just want it included in the plan. • Donovan: It is a place holder- $100,000. • Colton: I can hold off on the Cache la Poudre thing. Every one was talking about it during the campaign. Why can't we jump start the process. It seems like if we don't put it in the 10 year plan, we will not follow-up on those plans. • Knowlton: No, I think based on what John was saying, if we wait for that area to develop then we can look at DDA and others. • Hutchinson: I would offer that there is a lot of synergy occurring down there without additional tax dollars. There is the DDA bidding down there as well as private. • Stokes: We are doing lots of restoration on the corridor. Nix is on the corridor, and Salyer is on the corridor and we are going to spend a lot of money on these restorations. As a ranking site, frankly that site is not on the ox-bow. There are other sites that need our attention more that are probably a better resource for wildlife. • Colton: From a Natural Areas standpoint I agree, but from a city standpoint... • Stokes: I am speaking purely from a restoration perspective- we have a limited amount of restoration dollars. • Colton: I share your concerns. I don't want our dollars only going towards this project. Just leave it as it is. Natural Resources Advisory Board July 6, 2005 Page 9of10 • Skutchan: Are we just fishing without knowing whether we would be better off? Can we bring information back on this? Are we wasting our time? Can we just wait and see if the money has anything to do with trails? • Staychock: I am abstaining. • Donovan: If he isn't going to vote, we might as well not vote because we wouldn't have a quorum. • Skutchan: Can we bring information back? • Hutchinson: My understanding is that the Council will look at a list ands see if it feels good about the list. • Colton: I will withdraw the motion. • Stokes: I will ask around and get better informationi before we take any action. We have two more meetings before they meet, right? • Hutchinson: July 15`h is next meeting, but it won't be finalized until August. • Donovan: Regular work session? • Hutchinson: Yes. The motion was abandoned with the expectation that further information will be obtained from Smart Trips clarifying to which projects the place holder money is dedicated. New Business A special meeting for the NRAB is scheduled for July 20, 2005 to review the 2003-2005 Council Policy Agenda. Clint Skutchan will not be able to attend the special July 20`h meeting due to scheduling conflicts. Announcements Glen Colton requested that signs be posted near the natural areas bike trails that state "new bike trails brought to you by:" in order to educate Fort Collins citizens on where their Natural Areas tax money is being spent. Committee Meetings - Solid Waste Committee Update: Randy Fisher reported that the City of Fort Collins will add cardboard and paperboard to the list of recyclables beginning in November, 2005. As of Jan. 1, 2006, haulers will be required to pick-up this list of recyclables. Also discussed was the Resource Recovery Farm and an agreement was reached for the Committee to not meet in August 2005. Six Month Planning Calendar There was a request from Clint Skutchan that future NRAB meetings, and other related meetings, be scheduled in the evening hours in order to accommodate those who have scheduling conflicts with work. Adjourn at 8:07 PM Natural Resources Advisory Board July 6, 2005 Page 10 of 10 Submitted by Tamara Courtney 8/ )aCY6 S—