Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 11/02/2005MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD Regular Meeting 200 W. Mountain, Suite A November 2, 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, Jerry Hart, Glen Colton, Clint Skutchan Randy Fischer, Ryan Staychock, Rob Petterson, Nate Donovan, Joann Thomas Board Members Absent None Staff Present Natural Resources Dent: John Stokes, Terry Klahn Guests Ann Hutchinson Agenda Review No changes. Public Comments Ann Hutchinson said she hooked up Adam (ReSource Fort Collins) with Delta Construction. They're finalizing a temporary free space until he can get into the City's space. She's excited to be able to help. They may be ready to accept materials next week. Review and Approval of Minutes: October 7, 2005: The minutes of the October 7, 2005 meeting were unanimously approved with the following changes: Page 1, bottom: Change "powetpoint" to "Power Point" Page 6, change "fee" to "feel" Legislative Policy Agenda • Staychock: What's our process? What are the potential ramifications? What are we doing here? • Donovan: We are considering providing a recommendation to Council on what to include in their adopted Legislative Policy Agenda for 2006. That can be commenting on changes to the 2005 agenda, or coming up with new ideas for Natural Resources Advisory Board August 3, 2005 Page 2 of 8 legislation. As you saw, a lot of this is defensive in nature, and relating to local control and state and federal monies. • Knowlton: And if people have suggestions for things they'd like to add or change. • Stokes: The proposed changes for air quality were proposed by NRD staff, we reviewed those internally. • Donovan: I like the proposed changes. Some of them don't really relate to Natural Resources. • Colton: I don't see anything that addresses urban renewal. I would like to recommend to Council they support SB63 from last year and not allow communities to declare land which is more than 10% agricultural or natural resources as blighted. • Donovan: I thought there was some legislation that passed. • Colton: It was pretty weak, it didn't address the heart of the issue. • Fischer: It provided for other jurisdictions to comment, but their comments wouldn't have standing. • Donovan: Any comments on Glen's idea? • Knowlton: Good • Hart: It's appropriate. • Donovan: Do we want to vote on each idea, or collectively? Glen Colton made the following motion: Move that we recommend to Council to add support for a bill similar to SB 63, which would preclude communities from declaring agricultural lands as blighted to obtain urban renewal status. The motion was seconded by Linda Knowlton. • Staychock: Is this statewide, or local? • Skutchan: Is there anyway to get more information on the bill? If I don't know what it is, I can't support it. • Knowlton: Can we just say "similar to" ? • Donovan: I will draft a memo and email out. People who support the motion have the most ability to influence how the memo is drafted, but if something is inaccurate I'm willing to change it. • Skutchan: Leave out the reference to SB 63, and make more general comments. • Colton: The intent is to not allow communities to declare ag lands, zoned for or currently used as in the past five years, as blighted, unless its less than 10% of the land being put into an urban renewal. Timnath would not be able to declare an entire urban growth area as blighted, that's the intent. • Donovan: Is there support for removing the reference to SB 61 in this motion? The board is generally supportive of removing the reference to SB61. • Colton: The motion is to support legislation to not allow local governments to declare agricultural land be declared blighted to form an urban renewal district. Natural Resources Advisory Board August 3, 2005 Page 3 of 8 • Skutchan: That would be one of my concerns. We shouldn't say carte blanche that we don't allow that, there may be instances where it is appropriate. I can be supportive of limitations but I'm not comfortable with "no way, you cant do that". • Colton: SB 63 allowed a reasonable amount to be allowed. • Petterson: We want to have City Council have this on their radar. We've got the sense of the issue. Let's vote on that and move on. • Hart: The NRAB has a legitimate interest in avoiding having ag land being declared blighted so you can have urban development go in. That's what we should focus on. • Knowlton: Would this go the Planning and Land Use section. Do we have to say where it should go? The motion passed with eight (8) votes in favor, and one member, Ryan Staychock, voting nay. Randy Fischer made the following motion: Move that Council support reintroduction of an omnibus recycling bill in the state legislature. The motion was seconded by Ryan Staychock. • Skutchan: Could you further explain that? • Donovan: Representative Paccione introduced a bill that had state recycling goals. It set up a grant program with money from a portion of the landfill tipping fees. Public and private entities could apply for grants to establish recycling programs, or buy recycling equipment. • Petterson: It's to be supportive of recycling any way we can, broad scale support for recycling. The motion passed unanimously. Jerry Hart made the following motion: Move we support the staff recommendations related to air quality. The motion was seconded by Rob Petterson and passed unanimously. Colton: I have a question in general on how this board has approached this. Do we weigh in on specific pieces of legislation as they come along? I feel like this is so general, its nice, but what things should the City be proactively going after? Would the City like to be proactive on the statement of impact fees on schools. It may or may not come up. Donovan: That's been a concern for some time. In seem like we have made comments in one or two cases. Generally, we haven't recommended support or opposition for specific legislation. Petterson: Are we precluded? If no, then let's keep a close eye, and test the water. Natural Resources Advisory Board August 3, 2005 Page 4 of 8 • Staychock: I don't know how far I will get with this. Keeping in mind that gas prices are going up, forests are overgrown, and people are getting cold, I would like to see the City's adopted objectives for wood smoke removed. People should be able to burn wood to heat their houses. Its important for the sustainability of our forests. This is a barrier to good forestry practices in Colorado. Ryan Staychock made the following motion: Move that the statement that reads: "Support legislation and regulations that reduce wood smoke emissions and that restrict the installation of non -certified wood stoves and fireplaces" be removed. • Hart: I don't agree that we should give up our air quality. • Staychock: I don't think that removing that says we want to damage our air quality. We shouldn't support legislation to reduce wood burning. • Fischer: There is technology to burn wood cleanly. • Staychock: All I want is that to be deleted. I'm for air quality, and want it to be as clean as possible. • Petterson: I'm supportive of the restrictions. • Hart: Perhaps they could adjust the wording to say to reduce the uncontrolled or unmanaged burning. You don't want uncertified wood stoves going in. And you don't want a lot of wood burning in stoves that aren't efficient. • Staychock: I don't like the statement. If the motion is not going to be seconded, let's just move on. • Hart: I'll second the motion for the purpose of discussion. • Donovan: I don't support it. Wood smoke is a problem. I realize there are sometimes not alternatives, but its mainly in places where there are other alternatives. There is a lot of enforcement discretion. In the front range and Summit County there are good reasons for legislation. • Knowlton: Didn't the County try to loosen their restrictions? • Donovan: I don't think it was too successful. • Fischer: I have friends in Missoula, MO. Their air quality is the worse in the country due to wood burning. • Colton: I know some people are looking at biomass wood as electrical sources. We have huge areas of pine beetle kill that might have to be dealt with. I don't buy into having non -complying wood stoves. I do support looking at biomass as a potential renewable fuel source, but not in a way that would preclude air quality standards. • Staychock: We have the air quality standards in place. But I don't like the concept of trying to reduce wood smoke emissions, and restrict the installation of non -certified fireplaces here. I don't think removing the statement will gut air quality. I don't want to replace it with legislation to gut air quality. • Knowlton: All through the document it allows cities and local governments to have stricter standards than the state for any number of things. Are you saying you're happy with the state standards? Natural Resources Advisory Board August 3, 2005 Page 5 of 8 • Staychock: The motion is to remove the statement. • Petterson: I would perceive it as a withdrawal of support. • Staychock: I don't want to support regulations that reduce wood smoke emissions, me personally. The motion failed with one vote in favor (Ryan Staychock) and eight (8) votes opposed. • Colton: The whole super slab thing. I support the legislation that was vetoed last year. It's a big sprawl inducer. • Skutchan: I see that as a stretch for the NRAB. I don't agree with condemnation, but I don't see a direct relationship to the NRAB in Fort Collins. • Donovan: I agree with Clint. There's a general nexus, but its not quite specific enough. • Colton: I support in -stream flows. • Donovan: I will get a memo out. • Colton: Under water, utilities, page 32. More of a question, retaining existing policy and procedure for appointment of directors for water districts. Current policy supports more dams and water storage, and not members of the general public. • Stokes: I believe the issue is in how the board members are appointed. Everyone pays taxes, but only two of the board members are elected. The others are appointed by the existing board. • Colton: Its not a good process. • Hart: What expertise do we have? • Colton: I feel like we need more, well balance representation. • Donovan: I think there would be a link. Glen Colton made the following motion: Remove the following statement: "Retain the existing policy and procedure for appointment of directors for water conservancy districts. The motion was seconded by Rob Petterson. The motion passed with 5 votes in favor ( Petterson, Hart, Fischer, Thomas, Colton), 3 votes opposed (Donovan, Skutchan, Staychock) and one member (Linda Knowlton) abstaining • Staychock: Thanks for putting bio-diesel in there, its appropriate. • Knowlton: There was an article in the paper today that the Halligan / Seaman Reservoir EIS will be presented to the Corp of Engineers with NISP. That's a change from what they were planning to do. It bothers me a lot. • Stokes: I think the Corp has said the District, Fort Collins, and Greeley need to submit different dam proposals at the same time. The Corp will combine them in a single, global EIS and tell us what they think. They have to look at a region wide analysis, not a dam specific analysis. • Knowlton: That may be true but it's a change from what we were led to believe. Natural Resources Advisory Board August 3, 2005 Page 6 of 8 • Stokes: Its not any different from what I've been told for the last four or five years, its always been known that the Corp would combine them into a regional analysis. • Donovan: Why would it be inappropriate for Council to pass a resolution asking the Corp not to combine the EIS'? • Stokes: I don't think there's anything inappropriate. • Knowlton: Doesn't that affect the timing? Halligan and Seaman would be ready to go long before NISP is ready. • Stoeks: It could be a long time before that question gets answered. • Donovan: Should we put it on the agenda for a possible recommendation from this board to Council? • Stokes: I could ask Brian if he could come in and explain the analysis process. • Colton: I don't think its has always been stated this would be done together. I was surprised when I learned a year and a half ago they would be combined. Fort Collins wanted to do it alone, prior to NISP. • Knwolton: It makes sense to have Halligan and Seaman, but when you put NISP in there.... NRAB 2006 Work Plan • Colton: Park Planning and Development, will that be this board, or the Open Lands Board? • Donovan: This board. • Donovan: The Big Thompson Watershed Forum, is that still a concern? • Fischer: Yes, it is. • Donovan: Do we have any Brownfields projects in the City? • Stokes: Not that I know of. • Fischer: Is Development Review something you're still going to push for as a board? • Colton: It's not really about the board reviewing projects, its more about monitoring. • Staychock: I'd like to see us become more engaged and participate more in the city wide sustainability management plan. • Colton: I'd like to think this board could become more active in promoting all types of sustainability; energy, building code, straw bale. Frankly, there's a lot of people getting interested. I don't know where City code and stuff relating to that is. There are a lot of different sources of alternative energy. This board could be a lead in trying to drive the City toward sustainability in a number of different ways. • Staychock: Similar to what? • Colton: Energy in the community, sustainability energy cluster, providing jobs, other energy sources. • Stokes: By the way, if you're on the Xcel wind power program you'll save money and pay less than those using natural gas, because the cost of natural gas has gone up so high. • Fischer: I would like to reiterate support for discussion by this board of the future of the NRAB and the future of the department. I don't know if its necessary to put in here. It doesn't seem like we'll get to that anytime soon. • Hart: We need to keep it in front of us. Natural Resources Advisory Board August 3, 2005 Page 7 of 8 • Staychock: I heard a council person talk about dissolving the department. • Skutchan: Is the Regional I-25 Corridor a leftover, or do we anticipate something coming up? • Donovan: Its still a hot topic. • Knowlton: We need some analysis of what is happening with that, all of these other plans. I want to know what relates to the implementation of the regional corridor plan. It seems like there was something else going on regarding I-25. • Skutchan: Retail near Timnath? • Stokes: I'll touch base with Transportation and see what we can do to arrange some presentation. • Knowlton: The corridor plan had a monitoring section. • Skutchan: Annexation plans and policies, what would that be specifically addressing? • Donovan: As they affect natural resources. What's the impact on Fossil Creek Reservoir Open Space of the City's plan to annex? • Skutchan: What about additional transportation, vmt issues. Is Fort Collins working with other communities on mass transit? I wouldn't mind seeing that included in there. There are a lot of people talking about regional transportation and mass transit. It has to start with roads. There will be opportunities upcoming in the next couple of years. Nate Donovan asked that any additional comments be sent to him by November 15`h. New Business None Announcements • Stokes: We closed on a 240 acre conservation easement on the north end of Coyote Ridge. It was a great project. It was easy and they had done all of their homework. They gave us a donation as well. • Stokes: Regarding the article in the paper about Fossil Creek. What we've agreed to at the staff level is the City would take over January 1, 2010. There were all kinds of scenarios. It was easier to set a date and aim for that date. Our IGA says we will take it over when the we annex it in. That will probably happen in about a year. In a way it's a good deal. We don't have to take responsibility immediately. The County has done a great job. It's a very popular site. • Stokes: We heard from GOCO about the grant for the property south of Soapstone on Co Rd 15. It was a last second deal. They reviewed it and have recommended it for full funding. We're very pleasantly surprised. We'll know for sure in December. • Stokes: Lucinda has completed the biennial report on greenhouse gas emissions. It's very interesting. I'm glad to pass it on via email, its 60 pages long. Green house gas emissions have increased dramatically as a City. We have made a lot of progress. • Peterson: So, the rate of growth has slowed, but it is a big number. • Stokes: That's correct. Natural Resources Advisory Board August 3, 2005 Page 8 of 8 • Donovan: There's a seminar Wednesday, November 9 at the Lincoln Center on conservation easement appraisals and tax credits. You can get the registration form at the County's web page. Committee Meetings • Solid Waste Reduction — Randy Fischer: It didn't work out as I thought it would. We got together and talked about different strategies and the things that were presented by Skumatz for the Strategic Five Year Plan. Anyone with suggestions can submit those to Rob. • Peterson: There's an opportunity for the public to give input on December 1, from 4:00 — 7:00 pm at the New Belgium Brewery. There's also a web site www.fcgov.talkingtrash. • Natural Areas — Glen Colton: We talked about easements for the new high power line that essentially will run Overland Trail and Drake to Trilby. It's along the existing easement. They will put in higher poles, but there will be less of them. They're also going to take out an existing one along Shields. We felt it was a pretty good plan, the view shed is protected. We had no concerns. • Donovan: Wouldn't it have to come to this board to grant an easement. • Knowlton: So, the natural areas committee would recommend the board's approval? • Fischer: Ordinarily no, but we'll be getting rid of 2. We'll end up with just one. • Randy Fischer will not be at the November 16 meeting. • Glen Colton and Ryan Staychock will also be absent. Six Month Planning Calendar - Nate Donovan has questions about the November 29, City Structure Plan map amendments. He will check into that. - Randy Fischer has questions about the Transportation Maintenance Fee Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Submitted by Terry Mahn Admin Support Supervisor