Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 04/04/2001MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE April 4, 2001 For Reference: Randy Fischer, NRAB Chair - 226-5383 Bill Bertschy, Council Liaison - 484-0181 Tom Shoemaker, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Kelly Ohlson, Reagan Waskom, Steve Ryder, Phil Murphy, Randy Fischer, Linda Knowlton, Nate Donovan Board Members Absent Don Rodriguez, Bonnie Pierce Staff Present Natural Resources Dept: Tom Shoemaker, Terry Klahn Advance Planning Dept: Ken Waido Current Plannin¢: Ted Shephard Guests Joe Martin Agenda Review • Randy Fischer would like to discuss the Coyote Ridge Annexation, and suggested doing this immediately following the Poudre Development Rezoning agenda item. • Kelly Ohlson has a list of seventeen items he wants to talk about. I-25 Subarea Plan Update, Ken Waido Waido gave an overview of the changes that have been made to the plan since he last presented it to this board. He said they were concerned there was a perception that if the City were to do nothing that things would stay open. Staff and consultants didn't feel that was the scenario. Discussion • Fischer: What is the schedule you're working on now? How does this tie into the regional plan? We're planning on spending most of April visiting advisory boards. There's an open house next Tuesday night. The format of the open house will be a formal presentation followed by questions and answers. It will probably go to Council for adoption in late May or early June. Natural Resources Advis,_y Board April 4, 2001 Page 2 • Ohlson: This isn't a very hard working Council. Why isn't staff developing a blended version? I'm just suggesting there's another option. We will have a staff recommendation that may combine elements from all alternatives. • Waskom: Isn't the $70 million figure for Option 2 a facetious way to present that? Wouldn't it be more likely to do conservation easements? • Shoemaker: We're looking at that right now. It's important to note that this figure includes areas west of I-25 down south. One of the things Mark and I are wrestling with is the hard edge. • Ohlson: There are sociological features associated with crossing an interstate. Also, there's the cost of services. It's about the optimum size of a community. Let's be clear about what we're doing and why. • Ryder: If the major intent of this is agricultural land preservation, then the hard edge makes sense. • Fischer: Is it true that everything west of I-25 would be covered under City Plan. Has the City actually annexed any property east of I-25? Yes, the Prospect interchange has been annexed, also at Vine Drive there are a couple of fingers that stretch out. • Ohlson: What's the timetable when you'd like some comments from us again? Anything before the end of the month would be fine. • Fischer: We could sit down in a committee format and pound out the specifics. Board members will schedule a field trip. Poudre Development Rezoning, Ted Shephard • Ohlson: What about this caught the attention of the P&Z Board? The chairman of the P&Z wanted us to have a neighborhood meeting, and another concern was to have more time to read the Downtown Plan. • Ohlson: So, there were no real specifics? There was debate about the proposed zoning, and if it encouraged enough residential. We pointed out that the proposed zoning does include single family and multi family homes. • Ohlson: Why would someone with my values be concerned about this? If you weren't familiar with the standards in the code, buffering, floodplains, natural resource protection for trees, you might be concerned this would be harmful to the environment. • Ohlson: Is this one in the gray area, or is it a "no brainer"? • Waido: To me it's a "no brainer". • Shephard: It's pretty clear cut. • Donovan: It appears from the materials that there aren't many options. With the buffer and limitations on development, how much of this could be something like multi -family? • Fischer: The City's been dealing with these landowners for quite some time. Is this an attempt by the landowners to establish a zoning that would justify a certain price? We are required by law to take them out of the "T". We have to factor in some kind of zoning. Natural Resources Asory Board 40 April 4, 2001 Page 3 • Fischer: CCR is a more inclusive zoning. I'm concerned about the Buckingham neighborhood. That was their number one concern. We agreed that as soon as we get an inkling of a development proposal we would have another neighborhood meeting. The other thing we talked about was what couldn't go on. • Fischer: We've talked about not wanting to use natural areas monies to purchase this property. We've also been in favor of having things developed, provided that anything that comes in maintains the buffers and setbacks. One of the first requirements would be an ecological characterization study if it comes through for land development. • Fischer: If commercial development is allowed would they be able to fill and build commercial property in the floodplain. Basically, that was one of the loopholes. Marsha in Stormwater is our expert. I'm not qualified to answer that. • Ohlson: Tom, do you get asked on these things? • Shoemaker: Yes we do, and I think CCR is appropriate. I'm not looking forward to a development proposal. I would prefer City ownership. Annexation Presentation, Tom Shoemaker Shoemaker provided background on the specific proposal. He said from a natural areas perspective it makes sense and we do support it. It would provide police back up for our rangers. Also, our agreement with Latimer County says we will pursue annexation in Growth Management Areas. • Ohlson: Is this being driven by the City, or by private interest? I'm pretty certain it's City driven. We don't want to see another E. Mulberry, or S. College corridor. • Ohlson: There's no way this is good for the City, but it may be good for the community. They'll be able to do more density. • Donovan: Isn't most of the area that's not publicly owned developed to the density that it will be developed to? There's some vacant land, and future redevelopment. • Fischer: I have major concerns. I hate to see us start doing flagpole annexations. Another concern is when we start looking at the northwest and acquiring lands up there. There's a fairly large amount of county land there, does that mean in the future we'll do flagpole annexation out there too? I have a philosophical disagreement with natural areas creating an enclave where it wouldn't ordinarily be enclaved. I understand what you're saying. If we were being encouraged to purchase lands that were inappropriate that would be an issue, but these are lands that we have wanted to acquire. 1 haven't heard anything about the northwest areas. • Fischer: We'll have the precedent outlined. When someone brings it up in the future, they'll say we did it down south, so why not here? • Ohlson: There needs to be a paper trail. These things do matter when they surface. We need to make it clear that this shouldn't be precedent setting. • Knowlton: We could do a memo saying that we're a little concerned about annexing outside the GMA, otherwise we don't see a problem. • Ryder: The people who will be upset are the county folks who will be enclaved. It will reflect on the City of Fort Collins. Natural Resources Advis_ _ y Board April 4, 2001 Page 4 • Fischer: There are people that think the Natural Area Program is a tool to throw our weight around. On the point of the program throwing it's weight around, we're trying to achieve some specific, broad policies that do involve shaping the City. • Ohlson: We could submit a memo for the record that we dealt with this issue at our meeting. The reasons why this annexation is being done need to be made clear. Lay out specifically why we had to go outside the GMA. We don't want to put our stamp of approval that it's a great thing. • Murphy: We could have a memo that states we chose actively not to vote on it. • Fischer: One of the things that got this started was the impression was given that we had supported these annexations in so far that we hadn't objected to the email message. That was clarified at the study session last week. • Ohlson: In the memo are we going to touch on the natural area aspects, that we're not using natural areas as a reason for this? Randy Fischer will draft the memo and email it to board members for comment. Council Policy Agenda/Budget, Tom Shoemaker Shoemaker asked what kind of information the board would like to have available for their budget discussions. Right now we're looking for major topics, not exact dollar amounts. The criteria for new budget money is whether or not it's on the policy agenda. • Ohlson: It's the beginning of another two year budget. • Shoemaker: The groundwork was to get a sense of what kind of information, on what topics would be most helpful to the committee. We'd like to know what's on your mind so we can be prepared. • Knowlton: I would look to you to tell us things in the policy agenda that we should be concerned about, priorities for budget requests. • Ohlson: The budget can be new stuff and/or increased funding. • Donovan: It would be helpful to get the list of futures items we talked about, and that last budget memo. • Ohlson: It would be helpful to see what we sent a year ago. The Budget Committee will meet Wednesday, April 11, 2001 at noon. New Business • Ohlson: We should send welcome and congratulation memos to Council members. Also invite them to a meeting. Fischer will draft a memo. • Ohlson: Is the City coordinating Earth Day this year, if so, did we change the speakers from last year? COPIRG is coordinating Earth Day this year, we are helping to defray part of the cost. • Ohlson: Is there any information on when we may have the new recycling center in the middle of town? Any guess on the time frame? The CSU site is in the foodway. We have found a site that's co -located with the Rivendale School, at Prospect and Riverside. The Board of Directors has agreed, we're negotiating the lease rate now. Natural Resources Asory Board April 4, 2001 Page 5 • Ohlson: I'd still like to see follow-up on our input. It would be nice to get memos about what made it and what didn't, some sort of feedback. • Ohlson: I read in the paper that we're replacing the trail at Spring Creek and Lemay. Was this a no-brainer? When a trail is replaced it's an opportunity to make sure they didn't have a more appropriate place to put it. Shoemaker will follow up. • Fischer: The Rural Land Use Board Dry Creek Flood Mitigation Plan is coming up at the county level. We should get tied into that. There has been talk about using natural areas and open lands money to help facilitate this plan. If people at the county/city level are thinking about natural areas money going into this, we need to get involved. It might be a good idea to have a presentation from Bob Smith. • Fischer: The joint meeting with the Larimer County EAB will be May 5. Review of Minutes: February 14, 2001: The meeting of the February 14, 2001 February 21, 2001: The meeting of the February 21, 2001 March 14, 2001: meeting were unanimously adopted as written. meeting were unanimously adopted as written. The meeting of the March 14, 2001 meeting were unanimously adopted as written. Committee Reports Trials: Continued discussion on the Pineridge and Foothills trails. Announcements • Shoemaker: There will be another round of public meetings on the County's Open Land Master Plan April 18s', 7:00-9:00 p.m. at the Senior Center. • Shoemaker: Mr. Gibson, one of the new County Commissioners has a concern about boating at Fossil Creek Reservoir. • Shoemaker: Closed on a seven acre parcel across from Duck Lake. We jointly closed on the Gas -A -Mat properties with Utilities. They paid for the gas station land and we paid for the cheaper land to the west. We're in early negotiations on Lafarge's land to the west. • Shoemaker: We've got the outline of an agreement on the property at the corner of Trilby and Taft Hill Road. • Ohlson: The county is taking applications for appointments on a lot of commissions. Review Future Agenda Items April 18: Vote on Budget recommendations Review the Provincetown easements Easement Policy update Roundtable - issues Adjournment