Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 08/21/2002MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE August 21, 2002 For Reference: Randy Fischer, NRAB Chair - 226-5383 Ray Martinez, Council Liaison - 416-2154 Michelle Pawar, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Kelly Ohlson, Steve Ryder, Nate Donovan, Linda Knowlton, Arvind Panj abi, Randy Fischer Board Members Absent Don Rodriguez, Reagan Waskom, Phil Murphy Staff Present Natural Resources Dent: Mark Sears, Michelle Pawar, Terry Klahn CPES Admin: Tom Vosburg Guests Eric Hamrick, Council member Agenda Review No changes. E. Mulberry Corridor, Michelle Pawar • Ohlson: The City's been talking about conserving water in a variety of ways. Are there requirements in this for xeriscaping, soil preparation standards and etc.? Some requirements might look good, but might not be the wisest policies. • Pawar: I've asked Doug Moore to go through it with a fine tooth comb. • Donovan: Can we get an email about that? • Pawar: Yes. • Donovan: Could we identify the different flood plain regulations between the City and the County9 What conflicts are there? Also, how will the City deal with the airplane on a stick not being a part of the plan? • Knowlton: I don't buy that we can't veto that idea. I don't buy that we should accept what ever the County does, and then pick up the maintenance for it. • Fischer: This does say that the air memorial is not a part of the plan, to me that indicates we shouldn't expect to see it. Natural Resources Advisory Board • August 21, 2002 Page 2 of 5 • Hamrick: At a dinner with the commissioners we addressed it. We told them that we're not in support of the concept. It's a gateway to the City, not the County. I don't know what affect that might have on their decision. It's not a done deal. • Donovan: That brings up a larger question. What authority does the City have in terns of land use or flood plains, as it relates to what the County does in the growth management area (GMA)? • Panjabi. Why an airplane? Have any alternatives been suggested for a gateway, or possibly nothing at all? • Hamrick: At the last study session Russ and Pete indicated they have a landscape plan for those areas that does not include any monument or plane. There is a requirement the City has about art in public places that was included. • Knowlton: It's odd that we can advise Council if we think the plan is a good one, but we're being told hands off on this. It's not a natural resource issue, but we need to say something. • Donovan: If there are some design guidelines, or streetscape designs, and that idea is wildly in conflict why would it be silent? • Pawar: I'll find out. • Ohlson: It's not a natural area thing. We as individuals should express our opinion, but we shouldn't lose our juice on the natural resource issues. • Knowlton: It becomes a financial consideration down the line. • Donovan: If part of the long term implementation strategy is to amend the IGA, how does that affect things this board has jurisdiction on? • Fischer: In the P&R Board minutes of May 22 it states the P&R board feels that under Principal ENV-1 a stronger reference should be made to parks and trails. And, it was said that trails will not be less important than natural resource aspects of the plan. Pete didn't mention this at the last meeting. I don't have a problem with it, I just want to make sure that nothing regarding natural resources was compromised. • Ryder: I have a lot of questions. Some are minor but I would be pleased if they were addressed. • Ryder: We have goals and principals and guidelines. But in the implementation chapter there's really no implementation. It doesn't say how any of this stuff is going to happen. For example, it says that agriculture related business will be encouraged to continue, but no place in the plan says how that's going to happen. • Ryder: There's the goal of adequate buffers between the Poudre River and E. Mulberry. It's all developed. It's a huge missed opportunity in my view of the plan. There's not a statement of how you're going to achieve that. • Ryder: In terms of environmental goals there should be some financing mechanisms. There is a list of standard funding mechanisms to achieve open lands and natural areas. • Ryder: In my opinion objectives are measurable and have a time frame. • Ryder: On page 58 it talks about 167 acres of natural areas and open lands. Later it says there's over 600 acres wildlife habitat. • Ryder: On page 62 there's a few things about the Poudre Trail. It's mentioned as a multi -use trail, and it's importance as a transportation use. Again, it seems there's no Natural Resources Advisory Board • August 21, 2002 Page 3 of 5 plan for enhancing the trail through this plan. At least there should be transportation funding, instead of just Natural Areas and P&R funding. • Ryder: I understand the natural areas part of this plan is a minor one, it's really a redevelopment plan. The boundary is confusing to me. The Poudre River is in the plan in some places, and not in the plan in other places. That needs to be clarified for me. • Ryder: In Chapter 8, Urban and Streetscape Design, I assume they're referring to native and/or xerispace. That's an assumption. • Ryder: On page 106, Natural Areas and Open Lands, there's the "to the extent feasible" statement. We need to find a way to state if it's going to occur, or not occur. • Ryder: hi policy 1.3 it says the Cooper Slough natural drainage ways will be protected, a 300 foot buffer as measured from the outer edge of the wetlands. What are they measuring to, a wall, a building or what? • Panjabi: Is a trail along the buffer any part of this plan? • Fischer: I believe that in general trails are a type of development that should be outside of the buffer. • Panjabi: I want to reiterate the point to minimize water usage in new landscaping. Go with landscaping that is more appropriate. • Ryder: In Chapter 10 general comments it seems that implementation should cover how and how much. How are all of the goals in Chapter 4, and the policies in Chapter 9 really going to happen? It doesn't have to be down to the dime, but a little more specificity couldn't hurt. • Ryder: In the last sentence under P&T it talks about using a variety of funding mechanisms. I would hope we look for additional sources since these are additional costs. • Ryder: On page 126 they mention a TDU program, and that staff decided a plan similar to Fossil Creek is not feasible. That's right, but they're missing an opportunity. There's a large area to be creative. We've done more studies than most places on TDU rights. • Panjabi: Comments about the plant and wildlife surveys for sensitive, endangered, and threatened species. It's possible there are sensitive species, but more likely what we're talking about protecting are the more common wildlife species. I think that's worth including in any survey. We're trying to learn about what's out there. The surveys should focus on a broader range of species. • Ohlson: I agree, would you work up some language for Randy and Michelle? • Panjabi: Yes. • Ohlson: the acreage's and percentages in the tables on pages 12 and 13 are confusing. • Ryder: When we had the first presentation we had a discussion about the survey. I would hope we put some disclaimer on the front that it's not a scientifically valid survey. I think they've made an effort to let people know it's informal, but there should be a bold disclaimer. • Knowlton: This is such a small natural areas component. We've already spent hours. I hope we don't spend a long time at the next meeting. Natural Resources Advisory Board • August 21, 2002 Page 4 of 5 • Ohlson: I don't want to spend a long time either, but it's important to institutionalize some important things. • Pawar: I'll forward your questions to Pete. Do you want email, or do you want Pete to come back to the next meeting? Pawar will forward all questions to Pete Wray, and email the responses to the board. Pawar will also request that Pete attend the September 41" meeting to provide further clarification. Budget Exceptions, Michelle Pawar • Fischer: Is this enough money to do what we've said we're going to do? • Pawar: With the analysis we did, it should be enough. In fact I inflated the numbers on the $20,000 for education and outreach, and on the PAYT analysis to leave some room for contingency. One person will be dedicated to accomplishing these five different things. • Fischer: When you say 1 FTE for two years, does FTE indicate a full time staff person. • Pawar: It's stated as a contractual FTE, fulltime, with limited benefits. I didn't want to get funding for one year. That would impact our ability to focus and be consistent. The same individual needs to be able to focus. • Ohlson: I'm not sure the curbside yard waste is an environmentally appropriate thing. People should be paying a lot for it. We should be reducing. We need to get a real Pay As You Throw program established. • Pawar: It might be valuable to do the PAYT analysis first. I would consider moving that up. • Donovan: If we decide to wait till after the approval of the money, and switch the timing of PAYT, how do you balance the dollars? • Pawar: We could borrow from the $20,000 for education and outreach the first years. Clearly we don't want to spend all $20,000 in the first year. • Ohlson: It's done all the time. • Donovan: What constitutes providing management to the Rivendell drop-off? • Pawar: We didn't anticipate the oversight would be as intensive as it is. We had a minimal amount of money left. Henry was providing the oversight. His last day was Friday, our funding sources to retain him were gone. I didn't want to risk spending money that we don't have. Right now that oversight will be provided on extra air. It's not budgeted for, we're squeezing it in. • Ohlson: Can we have a Solid Waste Committee meeting to discuss the yard waste pick up? • Fischer: The way I interpret this is it goes back to the way the Council AIS was put together. It clearly showed yard waste recycling to get what we need to meet our goal. It's unfortunate because Council members latched onto that immediately. It was sort of intentionally portrayed that way. We can make our goal by doing this one thing. In Solid Waste Committee meetings we've had this discussion before. It provides another way of not doing the right thing. There was definitely a segment of Natural Resources Advisory Board • August 21, 2002 Page 5 of 5 Council that focused on percentage more than anything else. If we get funding for this, I would hope we can morph it into something else, maybe a larger education component. • Panjabi: Education should be emphasized, and there should be a financial incentive for people not to waste. • Donovan: Percentage was a big goal. I don't know if we understand the significance of how much the yard clippings being thrown away are impacting the landfill, and how much impact we'd have with even the most excellent education program. I don't want an incentive for people to keep bagging. I think there's an opportunity to do the things Kelly is talking about. • Ohlson: I'm open to that. If staff concludes that we're too focused on the percentage they can recommend to Council that the focus shouldn't be just on the percentage of diversion. • Fischer: Part of the problem is we don't have the data to say what we're diverting. That needs to be brought out more clearly. • Pawar: That is why we should do the PAYT analysis at the beginning. • Pawar: We weren't talking about percentages as far as our presentation to Council. There was no intention by staff to say that if you we do yard waste we'll meet our goal. One of my great concerns is that the percentages proposed might be way off the mark. • Fischer: Has the City Manager agreed that Council will see this? • Pawar: I've been told John will make a comprehensive response. Steve Ryder made the following motion: Move that we approve this budget request. The motion was seconded by Linda Knowlton and unanimously approved. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.