Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 04/18/2001MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING Senior Center April 18, 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, Bonnie Pierce, Randy Fischer, Linda Knowlton, Steve Ryder Board Members Absent Nate Donovan, Phil Murphy, Don Rodriguez, Reagan Waskom Staff Present Natural Resources Dept: Tom Shoemaker, Terry Klahn, Mark Sears Guests Joe Martin, Citizen Agenda Review No changes NRAB Recommendation to City Manager on 2002-2003 Budget Priorities Fischer said he tried to incorporate comments from the Budget Committee Meeting into the draft memo. Ohlson said that instead of twelve or fifteen things, we concentrated on four big issues. We were trying to focus on systemic change. The subcommittee and Shoemaker were on the same page on the focus of the memo being broader. Shoemaker said these things are all priorities that are not being adequately resourced. • Ohlson: Should TDU's or TDR's be in there? • Ryder: It would be good to mention TDR's. • Ohlson: On the P line of the memo, don't imply that this was suggested to be one- time monies. Suggest we say funding for this program expires at the end. • Shoemaker: It might be helpful to mention the Climate Wise Program, which included community outreach on Pollution Prevention and greenhouse gas reduction. • Knowlton: Correct the spelling of budget. • Ohlson: What was decided on air quality? • Fischer: It's not in the memo, but it's in the policy agenda. • Ohllon: Keep the memo to one page. Natural Resources Advi: . y Board April 18, 2001 Page 2 NRAB Recommendation to Council on Council 2001-2003 Policy Agenda • Ohlson: Try to soften the language in Number 2. This program can do more than eliminate discharges. It can be recycling and reducing materials. • Pierce: It's also conventional pollutants. • Shoemaker: It's broadly focused, partnerships with businesses, a multi -media approach. • Ohlson: On Number 4, change coherent to comprehensive. • Ohlson: Number 12 — leave out the word "new". It's already coming up for a vote, maybe we shouldn't leave it in, we don't want to draw attention to it. • Fischer: I think we should leave it in. • Ohlson: My goal is to get stuff done. It's already in the packet and moving forward. I think we should leave it off. • Knowlton: I agree. • Ohlson: Are we going to talk about the ongoing monitoring of water quality in the Poudre River, Fossil Creek, and Spring Creek. • Shoemaker: We could put it in with Number 12. • Pierce: Why is it restricted to just air quality, it could be increasing awareness of air and water quality issues. • Ohlson: We don't want to dilute the air quality bullet. I'd suggest adding another bullet that says "increasing water quality issues through a coordinated media campaign". By consensus, the board approved the memos. Provincetown Easements, Mark Sears This has been to committee and the full board within the past few months. We will be going to Council on May 151, second reading on May 15th. It's a complex issue. The primary reason for the change is drainage easements would be given to the developer and turned around and dedicated to the City. It doesn't make sense for the City to hold an easement on City property. It's best for the developer to hold it and pass it on to the HOA. Maintenance will be up to the HOA. • Ohlson: Did we define maintenance? Yes, and a whole set of covenants. If they don't maintain it we can file alien on every home. We've got a lot ofclout. Sears addressed several concerns that were brought up at the Natural Area Committee review of the project. - Is this fair compensation? We think it's fair. The 50% for the swales and pipeline are typical appraisal standards. The detention pond is a nine foot deep hole. The trade off is it would have to be on their property so we thought 100% was more appropriate. - Why is the detention pond here, versus on site? One reason is it's a quasi - partnership project. We looked at moving it onto their site, but it would require a 20- 30 foot high dam that wouldn't be very attractive from our property. It's also costly Natural Resources Asory Board • April 18, 2001 Page 3 for them to build. There's a bit of a gain to the community, the detention will lessen the flooding on Stanton creek. - Will they build water quality ponds? Future filings would have required water quality ponds, so they went ahead and put them in upstream of each swale. - Why are we subsidizing development this way? In essence, if we had to purchase these swales, it would cost 50% more than what they are paying now. They would also have purchased this land and built homes on it. • Ohlson: Is there any guarantee the affordable housing component will happen? What assurance do we have? I don't know the details, but our folks say this is true affordable housing. • Ryder: What's the number of restricted units they will build? It's about 30% of the total project. The City went through a RFP looking for companies to acquire and develop the site. • Shoemaker: In reference to the latest draft of the easement policy, there is one departure from the policy, but it has a five or six year history. Generally, our viewpoint would be to put the detention pond on their property. It would be unusual or rare for that to happen in the future. The pond naturally fits on our property. It's not as impactf it as a berm on their property would be. • Ohlson: It appears you've made all due diligence to recover the cost. It's a bad precedent. Hope the easement policy will be adopted soon. I don't even want to guess how much time you've spent on this, when I would have preferred you were out buying land. It's a lot of time to spend enabling a development to occur. I hate this concept, but you've done good work. They were also proposing a waterline easement, but we told them no. I showed them how to route the line through private property. • Fischer: I can't really comment on the technical stuff, none of the technical information is shown on the drawing. I don't know how they will get the swales to run that way. I've been out to look, there aren't natural swales as far as I can see. I hate this thing. It goes against our proposed easement policy. They haven't proposed any alternatives. It doesn't matter that it's mandated by Council. We can point out to Council that we think it's a bad natural resource policy. I'm wondering why we're buying the property. It's a nice open space, but there's no wildlife habitat. It will never be suitable for prairie dogs. • Pierce: It's my understanding it's extremely disturbed land. We mow it every year to control weeds and try to keep it under control. • Shoemaker: Just as you hope and push for continuity in our natural resource policies, so do those who try to foster affordable housing. We're part of the organization that has the affordable housing components. I disagree with Randy's view of the future habitat it offers. We're going to reestablish more native vegetation, and hopefully reintroduce prairie dogs in the future, although it will be some years. Another component of this will be reconstruction of Benson Reservoir, and trying to design that as well as we can to enhance habitat value. • Fischer: It's the precedent I have a problem with. I understand what Mark is saying, maybe their hands are tied. I just don't want any part of it, it's a bad precedent. The Natural Resources Advis—y Board April 18, 2001 Page 4 other example is detention ponds. Developers are required to put detention ponds on their own property. • Pierce: I by no means want to enable growth or development. But, I'm torn when things make sense ecologically to design it a certain way, that should guide the policy as well. • Ohlson: With the right people paying the cost. • Shoemaker: The place where it's potentially subsidizing development is the detention, and we're getting 100% fee value. • Knowlton: Would it be worthwhile to do a memo and point out the ways in which a project like this shouldn't occur in the future? That it violates current and proposed policy, and it's only acceptable because it was grandfathered. We could compliment staff for doing the best deal with the developer. • Ryder: I would propose adding something about not being opposed to affordable housing, but that we would suggest the City find other ways of supporting affordable housing. This is just a disaster, just the name makes people role their eyes. Shoemaker will draft a memo for review and approved by the chair. Larimer County Easement Request, Mark Sears The County will be widening South Shields adjacent to Colina Mariposa, south of Trilby Road. They're requesting .36 acre of temporary construction easement. It's very simple, the vegetation is non-native, and needs to be restored. The County will be required to restore it with native plants. The board approved the request by acclamation. Update on Easement Policy, Tom Shoemaker Shoemaker and Sears had a very productive, two hour meeting with Mike Smith and Jim Hibbard. There was nothing talked about that would be a deal killer from either point of view. 1. There's a gap in terms of the information we're requesting for operational information. There would be requirements about when they come back in. We haven't asked for their best schedule or description, or how often they might need access for operations. 2. They want to clarify that if there's an emergency they have to go in. • Ohlson: What is an emergency on a water line, can we define emergency a little bit? 3. Another point is one about the wording. There've been some good examples of working together in the past. They felt there should be some flexibility to elaborate on planning. 4. In terms of legal ownership, and the way the deeds appear, the City of Fort Collins, is the City of Fort Collins. We don't grant easements to each other. From a legal aspect, some things wouldn't require an easement. They might not go to Council, it would be done administratively. Ohlson: There's another issue about not going to Council. That's the public being able to see these things happening. When the players change, there will still be some Natural Resources Asory Board • April 18, 2001 Page 5 watchdogs. It can't be watched if it's not on the agenda. You're comment about public input is a good one. • Ohlson: I trust you guys, but I don't trust water utilities, I'm nervous with that. Some City projects could dwarf many of the private projects. • Fischer: My intent was not to say that we shouldn't collaborate. The policy I want to see was aimed at special districts and private developers. I don't see this applying to the City. • Knowlton: So you'll be re -drafting the policy and making changes? Yes, and bringing it back toyou. 5. The standard city policy of water and sewer in road right-of-way. They're not disagreeing with the concept. They did encourage us to add language regarding conservation of easement space. • Ohlson: So it appears this will go through Council? • Fischer: I have concerns about special districts commenting on this. I need to visit with Fischbach to see how much of that he wants to do. It wasn't going to pass without the City organization being on board, but it may pass over the objections of special districts. • Fischer: What are Transportation's main concerns? Their main concerns can be addressed in the easement policy, where it says easements for road widening may be granted If it's on the Master Street Plan, it will be granted. • Fischer: If they want definitive language like that, we should put in, " the Master Streets Plan at the time the natural area was purchased". My point is the place to address those issues is when a change to the Master Streets Plan is being proposed, not after it's been passed. • Fischer: Fifty years from now, when we're not here, I can see a future Council passing a Master Street Plan with a road going through a natural area. I would rather have a safeguard that because a natural area is there, there won't be a change. One thing we might be able to do is add language that gets to the planning issues. We can flag the issue that way, so that it's right out there in front. We've heard in some quarters that by controlling easements there's control of the overall land use policy of the City. • Ohlson: That thought has never crossed my mind, to influence growth. I never thought to use an easement policy to influence the growth, but it's a good idea. Lots ofpeople speculate about lots of things. Another issue, that can't be accomplished with the easement policy, is how do they pay for, and how much do they pay, for road right-of-way. • Ohlson: There's probably some middle ground. There will have to be some form of compensation. Natural Resources A&L. y Board April 18, 2001 Page 6 Roger Hageman Lease, Tom Shoemaker Shoemaker said he had been looking at the option of selling him a portion of the property with strict restrictions that would keep it from going into other hands. I wanted to make sure we weren't selling him something that he couldn't use. I compared the Land Use Code and state regulations, and looked at the wetland map. The reason it's not shown as floodplain is they stopped the study there. State regulations don't allow composting in floodplains. The bottom line is we decided not to sell the property. We do have a political problem. He's a small businessman doing good work. We're trying to negotiate a long term lease. We're at a five-year lease, and that's it. I'm prepared to take this to Council on May 1. • Ohlson: This isn't a battle worth fighting. How much are we getting? We'll get $1200 a month. There are two ways of looking at it. The market rate would probably be a little higher, this is the return on the investment rate. • Fischer: There are a number of people who feel that what he does is a valuable service to the community. Is there is any assistance the City can provide? I've thought it might make sense to lease County land, on the landfill site. • Shoemaker: He is diverting 45,000 cubic yards of material from the landfill. He has been a good partner, we don't want him to go away. • Ohlson: No one was ever looking to hurt Roger, we're looking to help. I do wish he didn't put toxins on the wood chips, it's not a totally benign industry. The board approved by acclamation. The meeting adjourned to work session.