Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 03/02/1998MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE AVENUE December 2, 1998 For Reference: Phil Murphy, NRAB Chair - 491-6303 Bill Bertschy, Council Liaison- 484-0181 Susie Gordon, Staff Liaison - 221-6265 Board Members Present Phil Friedman, Bill Miller, Randy Fischer, Don Rodriguez, Kelly Ohlson, Rick Harness, Phil Murphy, Nate Donovan Board Members Absent Reagan Waskom Staff Present Natural Resources Dept Terry Klahn, Susie Gordon, Tom Shoemaker, Karen Manci Advance Plannine: Timothy Wilder, Clark Mapes Guests Sally Craig, Planning and Zoning Board Glenn Haas, CSU, ELC Joe Maurier, State Parks, ELC Agenda Review See Revised Agenda Downtown River Corridor, Timothy Wilder The last time Timothy Wilder was here regarding the Downtown River Corridor Plan was May of 1998. He recently gave a brief overview of the plan to the NRAB Growth Management Committee and received their comments. The areas outside the downtown river corridor will remain mostly natural, while the downtown area can have more of a mixed use. What specific uses should be applied becomes important. The foundation will have to meet City Plan policies. Along the river there is a variety of zoning; POL, RC, Transition, Employment and Downtown River Development. The conceptual diagram is very generic at this point. Plans are to work on a more specific plan, but staff needs input so there's a strong starting point. There are various options for the board to consider and give direction on where to go. Natural Resources Advistny Board December 2, 1998 Page 2 Discussion • Shoemaker: In most areas are you showing more than a 100 foot buffer? Yes, there are many areas of 200 foot or more, but there are some areas we may not be able to gain that access. There's a 100 foot minimum buffer wherever possible. • Ohlson: Are the buffer zones following the proposed city buffers? It follows pretty well, 200 feet in downtown area, 300 feet in others. • Ohlson: The map is dishonest, inappropriate and misleading. When people see green they think two things, 1) permanent and 2) publicly owned. There needs to be an honest presentation of what's City owned and privately owned. It must be made clear that the green area on the map is not currently in City ownership. We need a different map that shows land as "desired" to be purchased by the City. The idea is to create a map that will accurately convey that. • The City currently owns the power plant site (currently leased to CSU), under this plan it would remain in public ownership, but not necessarily public use. Also the building will be taken down eventually. If the Community Center decision is to move it elsewhere we don't know what the options are. • Friedman: If they're moving because of the subsoil issue, is it fair to say it won't be replaced, or will it be reengineered? Don't know. • Ohlson: It's not an absolute. They're looking at other sites. If had to replace old building, would rebuild closer to College Avenue. Because of complications they're looking for other sites. Odds are it will be there, but looking for a better site. • Fischer: It's really unsuitable for development, it doesn't make sense to build anything there. Future generations will have to pay for it. A private owner did build on substandard soils. It was very expensive, had to secure it somehow. Can do that with a building but it's almost impossible to do a parking lot. • Friedman: Given that the site is troublesome, it's a perfect opportunity to say "let's go find a better site that fulfills the needs of the community center without costing hideous amounts of money. We shouldn't shirk from that, if it's a bad site, let's just acknowledge it. If it's appropriate that's fine too, need to find out the correct answer and if it's not a good site let's have this plan say that. Yes, need to play a coordination role, if it's identified as a poor site, then it needs to be removed from this process. • The area of most contention in the plan is the Oxbow site, currently owned by Poudre Development Corporation. It has been identified as a potential civic or natural area use for a long time. It is in the 100 year floodplain, and most is now on the natural area inventory. • Ohlson: Is that the site some people want an amphitheater on? Yes. • Fischer: Is the Oxbow site in the 100 year flood plain? Yes, but not in the floodway. There is also a portion of the site that is outside the flood plain. • Ohlson: What is the history of the city attempting to acquire all or part of the two sites? The only site on the target list is the Oxbow site. There are several adopted plans that show conflicting uses. • Friedman: On the Oxbow site, if the direction is to move towards some type of civic development, we should make every effort to make it small scale with no impact on Natural Resources Advisory Board • December 2, 1998 Page 3 the river. Building an amphitheater for 200-300 people might be appropriate, but not 1500 people. Freidman: Need to be concerned about parking too, there will certainly be visual impact, and maybe environmental impact, if there is parking near the river. Sally Craig: Heard from staff at the Division of Wildlife that the DOW is interested in looking at a partnership on working on some fish habitat, there may be some funding available from the DOW. Staff will contact the DOW and find out what's in mind. Ohlson: Have a problem with the consultant that the City hired, there is a potential serious conflict of interest because they are a local consultant. The City should have been more careful in the selection, and I would like that to be passed on to the appropriate people. Land Use Code Update, Tom Shoemaker Want to take a few minutes and give an explanation on where the natural areas portion of the Land Use Code currently stands. Decision was made to pull the natural areas section of the land use code. Several members of Parks staff became aware of changes and had concerns about buffer widths in Spring Creek and Fossil Creek. Met with them immediately and tried to understand their concerns and address them with revised language without watering down what we were doing. Three main issues for Parks and Rec are 1. Many didn't realize we regulate natural areas at all so we're at the beginning of the learning curve. 2. Concerns about substance, uncomfortable with the table of buffer widths. 3. Trigger that sends Parks projects to P&Z for review if buffer goes under a certain limit. Discussion Ohlson: Should be able to resolve first issue, it's just a misunderstanding. Do you think Parks staff and boards will be OK when they understand? We didn't realize there would be such a problem. We're trying to hammer this out at staff level and bring back in January. Council wants as soon as humanly possible, even if it means P&R hold a special meeting in early January. Murphy: This is very frustrating, we review documents and they are continually manipulated. We need a final document to come us, even if we don't like it, and then tell Council what we like and don't like. Can't keep making changes, and having staff run back and forth. We will bring final staff recommendation back and let Council sort it out. We don't need to be overly concerned since there are regulations in place, but the new changes are important. Fischer: If their board isn't meeting until January, when is the educational process for P&R going to take place? Staff will be a big part, there will also be information in advance of the meeting. We don't want them to avoid park sites that have natural areas associated with them. Natural Resources Advisoy Board December 2, 1998 Page 4 • Friedman: It's critical to get this moving so it goes before the existing Council. If April escapes us, then who knows what will happen. • Rodriguez: Same problems exist in Boulder between P&R and NRAB. Might this be circumvented with a subcommittee with individuals from both boards? Is that something you're interested in doing, maybe it could be productive? I don't believe it will happen in this time frame, if we use that process we may be looking at March. • Murphy: It was a year ago that NRAB's Growth Management Committee started working on this. To say "let's get a group and get consensus" would be a giant step backwards. We've spent a lot of time with a lot of expertise to come up with this. As a board that's advisory to Council, we can say yes or no. I'm not sure what could be accomplished at this point, maybe a one-time meeting for educational purposes. • Donovan: Are you suggesting a committee regarding these issues, or general issues in the future? • Gateway Park will be an excellent opportunityfor both boards to work through a design project. • Donovan: Is there a process problem, was this the first time the Parks Board ever saw this? Yes, there was a process problem for lots of reasons, including staff changes. • Miller: Do we need subcommittee minutes and have them shared with P&R? They would learn why we do things and adopt resolutions. • Murphy: We were dealing with Land Use Code in natural areas and were centered there. Didn't think about the impact to parks, it was an oversight. • Miller: The last thing on our mind was considering the City as a developer. • Ohlson: All of these things seem to be blowing up at the last minute. Please make P&R aware that 95%-98% of what they saw was existing policy, and that it's being put into code. They think this is new. We have been, and we will continue to say it in many different ways. Council too, they don't realize it's existing policy. • Ohlson: Appreciate Tom's (Shoemaker) sense of fairness. But, when we raise questions they say "sorry, we'll do better next time", but when someone else has concerns about something we've worked on for over a year it comes to a screeching halt. It's got to start somewhere to change that. It needs to work both ways. I agree. Natural Areas Management Regulations, Tom Shoemaker The regulations were scheduled for Council agenda last night (Dec. 1) but were pulled from the agenda in response to concerns by more than one Council member. All we are aware of is an e-mail from one citizen. There was lots of discussion at the end of the Council meeting. What we're trying to do is get a handle on the issues and address. We're looking and searching to see if there's anything in the regulations we don't think is critical. Discussion • Ohlson: This issue got bigger because of a citizen's concerns regarding a "sticks and puddles" issue. The intent is not to stop kids from skipping rocks and throwing sticks. If a child is throwing a few sticks it's not an issue, but if it's bigger kids and they're Natural Resources Advisory Board • December 2, 1998 Page 5 moving around river rocks, the issue becomes larger. It would be great if we could allow a few kids to do some things, but the rangers must be able to enforce. Another issue is, can a kid put his feet in the river? How about houses bordering natural areas, if you fly a kite are you going to get a ticket? Let's get rid of this. • Fischer: I sort of disagree with Kelly, this same thing is happening with the County Land Use Code. People are coming out of the woodwork saying, " I can't have a party because there will be more than four cars in front of my driveway." It doesn't say that a kid can't skip rocks in the river. It could be interpreted that way, the fear is this discretion could be used to hammer kids throwing rocks. That's not how we're approaching enforcement, we don't want to write tickets to people for throwing rocks. It is the discretion of the ranger, but it has to be backed up or we'll be in court all the time. We must have a certain amount of specifics to allow a ranger or police officer to issue a ticket. • Friedman: No matter how we write the laws there will be different interpretations, we need to be as clear as possible, allowing for exemptions that are not discretionary. • Olson: This is unacceptable. We must fix it, we don't have an option. The values of this Board are going to be eaten alive unless we make changes. We lost the public relations war, we need to adapt or we will lose bigger fish. We'd better adapt real quick. • The direction so far is to bring it back to the Council and vote on it December 15. Would rather look at the issues and explain. • Ohlson: It changes from season to season, the horse people want to be able to ride where they want and cross the river anywhere, skiers want to know why they can't cross country ski. You can't do anything on a golf course, but somehow in natural areas people seem to think anything should be allowed. • Friedman: You can't play basketball at the corner of College and Mountain either. I was at Cathy Fromme Prairie on Sunday. There were teenagers riding horses, very responsible. They did get off the trail and wandered between two to fifteen feet but were averaging ten feet. The horses impacted no one. Bikes and skaters were a huge impact. No one is going to hassle horses if they're 18 feet off -trail, but if forty feet off, then yes. • Ohlson: The key word was frivolous. Council requested representatives from the NRAB when they deal with the dog issue. • Ohlson: Where we fall down is the explanations. We will be backed up 99% of the time with great explanations. We must get people to understand that while these things may seem frivolous, they're not. We must do the education, especially with Council. • Ohlson: Was it Council or staff that thought it was important to bring the Land Use Code changes and the natural area regulations back the same night? We don't want to stir up the pot in natural areas two ways. Parks department is taking their regulations to Council to put into code, they're waiting till February. There are pros and cons if Parks regulations go to Council at the same time. Are we reviewing theirs? Their's are park use regulations, not management plans. • Fischer: Did our regulations go to a work session? No, hindsight is great, but it was on consent, we didn't anticipate a problem. Natural Resources Adviso.y Board December 2, 1998 Page 6 Friedman: We're damned if we do and damned if we don't, if we try to be nice and make exceptions we're going to get hammered. Where does it end? I know, I agree. We'll get there. 1999 Workplan for NRAB, Susie Gordon Susie Gordon advised the board that this workplan is a tool, and it can be refined as necessary, on an ongoing basis Phil Friedman made a motion to approve the 1999 Workplan to be submitted to Council as amended by the Board. The motion was approved unanimously. Horticulture Center, Don Rodriguez There is ongoing negotiation with CSU regarding the cost of CSURF. There are concerns about costs outlined in the original motion. The City is walking a tight -rope, trying to keep Lee Martinez as a viable option to use as leverage to keep the cost of the CSURF site down. Initial responses from CSU are alluding to a price reduction of $200,000 to $300,000. East Prospect Rezoning, Clark Mapes Property on East Prospect, near Summit View is currently zoned Transition (T). The intention was to come back and put it into a real zone district. A couple of owners have requested rezoning and the City Structure Plan shows a broad swath of river corridor and open lands designation. The proposal is to change the structure plan to get "Employment" on the south side of the project. Discussion Shoemaker: It's worth pointing out that a composting operation is occurring in a portion of the site that we own. There is potential that it could be sold to Roger Hageman, there was support from NRAB to find a way to continue the operation. Mapes: T is transition zoning, we weren't prepared to zone while there were negotiations going on. CCR (Commercial zoning) is the wrong designation due to technicalities. We agreed that Employment would be appropriate. Miller: Why? It's a use that is kind of a business park use. The land appears suitable for development, it's out of the river valley and Boxelder creek corridor. It's a major roadway into town. There's no compelling reason to zone for open land and it doesn't look like a good residential area. Natural Resources Advisory Board • December 2, 1998 Page 7 • Donovan: Commercial, Employment and Residential, are those the only three choices? Essentially, yes. • Ohlson: Who made the decision to recommend the change? There isn't just one person, there are several people involved. • Donovan: What are the parameters of what could be built if it's Employment? Mainly focus on non -retail employment, such as things found in business parks, light industrial (inside a building). Can build up to six stories, talks about excellence in design, geared to a business park environment, or campus developments along the lines of HP, promotes a nice image. • Ohlson: Would this be considered an up -zoning? No, it's more of a shift. • Friedman: What was the logic behind Parcel E being CCR? It was just a mistake or an oversight. • Miller: What's to prevent a six story building from going up in the future? Staff has come around to the logic of designating it as RC zone, there will be virtually no more development. Could go to 25% expansion. It really is not a development zone. • Ohlson: What is the timetable for P&Z and Council? Will go to P&Z in January. • Glen Haas: We're concerned about the door being opened to land uses that are not consistent with the ELC. We're concerned about the view shed (to the west) of the Welcome Center, and access to the whole river. It's private property, cannot zone to be a view shed for a different piece of property. • Murphy: Maybe this should be referred to the Growth Management Committee. • Ohlson: The people who have an interest in this should continue to be involved, perhaps join the Growth Management committee. • Murphy: Suggest that the Growth Management Committee bring back a recommendation. Review Future Agenda Items: Add Gateway Park and Cottonwood Glen to December 16 Move City Plan Monitoring to January 20 Committee Reports Solid Waste: Leaf collection program was overwhelmingly popular. Spent more than originally budgeted, but numbers of people are way up. Brief Announcements Sally Craig: Division of Wildlife employee saw what was happening on the Spring Creek reclamation project between College and Stuart and was very disappointed. Maybe someone should go out there a take a look. Phil Friedman: Land Use Transportation workshop Thursday, Dec. 10 from 4:00 — 9:00 p.m. in Northglen. Phil Friedman: Received e-mail regarding pending opposition to NE Truck Route with regard to environmental justice. We shouldn't let the most powerful voice get their way when the least powerful voices would suffer because they are the poorer neighborhood. Natural Resources Advisory Board December 2, 1998 Page 8 Phil Friedman: Things are going well with Cities for Climate Protection. We shouldn't just accept existing things and call them new measures. New measures will solve the problem, existing measures will not have much impact. Randy Fischer: 1" meeting of the Flood Plain Development Task Force is 12/03/98. Kelly Ohlson: There is an environmental brown bag session the first Friday of each month in the CIC room. Kelly Ohlson: In the next decade a million acres of Colorado land will become sprawl, according to a recent report. Tom Shoemaker: The Transportation Department is having a Walkable Communities workshop on December 9. Phil Murohv: Saw a new horse trail at College and Drake, two people on horses came right through the intersection. Review Minutes November 4. 1998: Page 5, change to: The Board is always willing to compromise, but I'm sick and tired of, in my opinion, staff being more concerned about NIMBY and special interest concerns than the board's concerns. The November 4, 1998 minutes were unanimously approved as amended. November 18, 1998: The minutes were unanimously approved as written. Review Action Log See update in packet. Other Business Phil Friedman likes the new version of the minutes, you can see who said what and staff responses. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.