Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 07/05/2000MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE July 5, 2000 For Reference: Randy Fischer, NRAB Chair - 491-6303 Bill Bertschy, Council Liaison - 484-0181 Tom Shoemaker, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Randy Fischer, Kelly Ohlson, Don Rodriguez, Phil Murphy, Reagan Waskom, Bill Miller, Nate Donovan Board Members Absent Rick Harness, Jan Rastall Staff Present Natural Resources Dent: Tom Shoemaker, Terry Klahn CLRS: Marty Heffernan City Forester: Tim Buchanan Guests Mike Ditullio, Fort Collins/Loveland Water District Agenda Review No change. Horticulture Center Conceptual Plan, Tim Buchanan Buchanan said he would briefly mention a few significant items before answering questions. The Sherwood Lateral has been relocated. The trail is now on the south side of Spring Creek. The benefits of this are that it will be cheaper to construct, there are no bridges, and it helps keep people further away from the creek. The gardens are labeled, with the prairie garden intended to be the signature garden. There is a neighborhood park with a picnic area, playing field and a shelter. The funding is adequate to do the building and three to five acres of gardens. Discussion • Donovan: Is this just a piece of the conceptual design? Is there another document that adds other aspects of the plan? There are other aspects of the project that don't fall under "environmental". • Ohlson: Overall it looks good to me. What's next to the 100' buffer on the north? CSURF. Natural Resources A isory Board July 5, 2000 Page 2 • Ohlson: I wish we'd bought more land. CSU was very challenging to deal with. Is there any chance of getting more land? • Shoemaker: The City will continue to negotiate with CSU. A higher priority would be continuity along Spring Creek. • Ohlson: The green building rating system emphasizes energy. That's only one aspect of green building. The checklist had about thirty different things you get scored on. • Ohlson: At some point I'd like to have a copy of the green building scoring system. • Ohlson: On page two of the memo it says we're increasing the flood detention capacity. Are there any natural resource concerns? There's little natural resource value, it's mostly exotic species. I think it can be enhanced. • Ohlson: So, we shouldn't be concerned about the excavation along the creek? The net result will be a considerable improvement. In three or four years there will be much improvement. • Ohlson: What's the habitat garden? Will it be similar to backyard wildlife habitat? That's exactly how I would describe it. • Ohlson: Will the fence have any negative impacts to wildlife? We're not expecting any problems. It's purpose is for security, and maybe the opportunity to charge a gate fee • Ohlson: What's a "commissioning agent"? Someone to ensure that everything works. It's mostly to do with the building. This person is part of the design team. • Olson: I wish the City did this all the time, to check and make sure the City's getting what they pay for. • Ohlson: How big is the "Great Lawn"? It's about 15,000 square feet. It's important to have an open lot area for groups that come in, such weddings and outdoor speakers. • Ohlson: Will that be blue grass? Irrigated tall fescue. • Rodriguez: This document is well done. Can you tell us how you're going to phase this. What are the priorities? Phase 1 will include the building, parking lot, site work, Sherwood Lateral rework, Spring Creek grading, the park, sidewalks and three to five acres of outdoor gardens. I don't know which ones they will be. They will likely be the ones around the new building and the Great Lawn. Also, the Prairie Garden. • Rodriguez: Do you envision it being larger, and wanting to grow? We're starting off with a lot of land. We don't have a lot of room to expand. • Miller: I'm wondering about the appropriateness of the location of the meadow and the interpretive trail along the wetlands. Maybe we could move the trail closer to Center Avenue. • Fischer: Did the building get bigger? It's bigger than originally envisioned, but it's the size we've looked at for the past year. • Fischer: Size isn't a big issue, the cost is. Will you have to go back for more money? We have our budget. We're hoping some of the space in the new building will produce income. • Fischer: Did the "green building" add to the cost? The net effect was probably a slight reduction. Natural Resources Board July 5, 2000 Page 3 • Fischer: Who is paying for the restoration and enhancement? It's part of the hort center budget, there may be opportunities for grants and volunteers. • Murphy: How much money do you have available right now? 2-114 million. • Donovan: When will you break ground? We'll start the bidding in the fall. We won't see any construction this year. There should be a lot of activity in 2001. • Murphy: What's the size of the area inside the fence? Somewhere between 11 and 12 acres. • Ohlson: How did you determine the size of the parking lots? We plan for heavy day usage. • Ohlson: Have you planned for stormwater yet? It's an organic approach, very few chemicals. • Ohlson: How many people will be staffed there? There will be four full-time people. • Ohlson: It would be nice to get a memo to get your responses on things like lighting and fencing. • Miller: Have you checked to see what Transfort's plans are? Will there be buses going up and down Center Ave? • Donovan: They already are. • Rodriguez: The issue of runoff would be easily addressed on the swail. Fort Collins/Loveland Water District, Tom Shoemaker Shoemaker said there has been no staff recommendation formulated at this point. Staff is interested in what the board has to say, and will spend more time with the District to try to work through details before making a recommendation. • Ohlson: Provided an update from the last meeting. Members weren't wild about the visual impact, or the disruption to Coyote Ridge during construction. There were also concerns about the amount of time it would take to get it back in shape aesthetically. There are impacts to wildlife. It was not embraced in any way, shape or form. Comments were made that it's not our job, as advisors to Council, to go out of the way to enable development. It was pointed out this isn't really a developer, it's a water district. But, this still relates to development. There's nothing that will make me change my mind. If it is approved the City needs to make sure they not only get fair value for the easment, but fair value for the amount of time it's disrupted, impacts on widlife, and things like the intrusion of weeds. All anyone has to do is go to Cathy Fromme Prairie to see the impacts. We're here to advise Council on natural resource issues, and the protection of those resources • Waskom: There was an alternative presented. They could go north and east. It would require more pipe. It would be much more difficult, and add additional cost. • Miller: It was more than double the cost. • Donovan: What is the process on this? Is there a time table? • Ditulio: It was our understanding that you would deny our request tonight. We wanted the opportunity to have your input. We have been working on this for about 18 months. Natural Resources A isory Board July 5, 2000 Page 4 • Shoemaker: Mark and I will be working in the next few weeks to come up with a recommendation. Then it will have to be scheduled to go to Council. We still need more information to make a fully informed recommendation. • Ohlson: Win, lose or draw, it is not our intent to slow the process. If we don't do a formal vote it won't slow the process. • Murphy: I understand staff needing more information to make a recommendation. I'm on a more emotional level. It seems to me they should be taking the longer route. Yes, it's more expensive, but it seems to me this is being put in for future development. If it costs more money to give them water, they'll just have to pay for it. I'm prepared to vote on a motion tonight. • Donovan: Is it necessary to have our input in your recommendation? Not necessarily. An alternative is for us to work with the district. Let us know what you're thoughts are, if you have suggestions we can factor that in. We'll put together a recommendation and report back. • Ditullio: One of the concerns I have is that we're going to be back in this room again. There will be many other issues where we'll be required to meet. The Natural Resources Department has acquired land along the foothills. This board needs to formulate a policy on how they will deal with the utility issues in sensitive areas. If we understand the ground rules, we can resolve these issues in a win/win situation, and we won't have a confrontation. • Shoemaker: We may not see eye -to -eye, but Mike and his group have been good about pointing out they're looking far ahead. That's our goal too. Through this process we'll come up with better policies. We'll all have a better comfort level. • Ohlson: We can give our input to staff tonight, that won't preclude us from making a motion in the future if we want to. I hope City staff looks at their charge, which is to protect the public lands. Our concern isn't the added cost to the homeowners the district serves. • Shoemaker: I'd go beyond that. If the least impact solution were on City property we'd be saying that too. The direction the tank has gone is much better. Now, we're looking at the underground lines. • Fischer: I have concerns about the future of natural areas. Everyone shares the concern about the natural areas program providing the utility right-of-ways of the future. We're creating a beautiful network of easements. The legal issue about whether they can condemn or not is one worth pursuing. We don't have to budge an inch. • Shoemaker: One of our challenges is to not have the natural areas as a place to go with utilities. What you have to remember is what we've set out to do. We're protecting natural areas within a highly developed urban setting. We have the additional concerns of previously developed areas. There are situations where it's more complicated in an urban environment. • Murphy: This one is an economic decision — total dollar value. • Waskom: There was also a hassle factor, disrupting the street. • Fischer: Suppose the City allows the easement. How much is the City going to get for this easement? Natural ResourcesAdvisory Board • July 5, 2000 Page 5 • Ohlson: There's a minimum of two charges. There's the easement charge, and there's a disturbance fee. Also, if they go in again in the future there should be a charge. We have to get to where it's fair for both sides. • Rodriguez: Those external costs are legitimate costs. • Miller: This is an issue of the public taxing themselves to protect certain values, then turning around and subsidizing growth. • Ohlson: Where do you want us to go with this? • Fischer: I'm ready to vote. • Ditullio: Your comments are relevant. Maybe the test case needs to be now. There are issues that will raise concerns. The following motion passed unanimously (6-0). Move that the Natural Resources Advisory Board advise City Council not to allow the water utility easement requested by the Fort Collinsa oveland Water District through the Coyote Ridge Natural area, and adjoining natural areas. Downtown River Corridor Discussion Tom Shoemaker said Randy Fischer asked for this to be added to the agenda. There is an internal draft document that hasn't yet been reviewed by staff. The Board has heard elements of this report many times. Timothy (Wilder) has tried to bring the information together in a report. In terms of projects and implementation there's not much that has changed from the last update. • Ohlson: I'd suggest we send out another memo that is essentially the same as the previous memo. • Fischer: The intent was for everyone to have a chance to say something, and for everyone to see the report. • Waskom: Has anything changed substantially? • Shoemaker: The list of projects in the executive summary is wrong. The correct list is in the report. This is talking about recreational river channel enhancements. Habitat and recreation are separate. There are other minor changes. The Udall Natural Area restoration was shown as a stormwater improvement. I insisted that be changed, it's a joint project. We added the Brownfields grant. • Murphy: On page 35, the implementation matrix shows the Oxbow acquisition for public use. There's no way it will be a natural area. • Shoemaker: We should put natural areas in as a potential funding source. The land owners are not interested in a natural area scenario, but if that becomes a possibility, and the price was fair and reasonable we would be interested. • Ohlson: Strategically I disagree. The reality is the City isn't going to buy it as a natural area. Even if it's not bought with natural areas money, there can still be a natural areas fabric. Natural Resources A isory Board July 5, 2000 Page 6 • Ohlson: The City should not be in the business of the public bailing out of private contamination. I was hoping the language would be a little stronger, the land uses are flexible • Ohslon: Page 1, the 2°d priority — bank stabilization. The first priority should not be off-street public parking. Developers should provide the parking. What they're referring to is a parking structure. This should not be a priority of the public treasury. • Fischer: My feeling about the plan is it's become a transportation infrastructure plan funded by the taxpayers. • Ohlson: If people come in and build and develop, I won't be opposed to a private structure if the people build it themselves. I'm talking about public financing. • Ohlson: Page 10, P paragraph. It says buffer zone distances may be modified if it creates an undue hardship on the developer. Yes, sometimes 60' is appropriate, but sometimes 360' is appropriate. Make sure that's always out there and clear. • Ohlson: It says that residential development is not allowed in the floodplain. But, commercial buildings can be turned into residential housing in the flood plains. • Ohlson: They talk about protecting Buckingham.. Hopefully they have studied and mitigated so there will be a net gain on the environmental impacts. • Miller: I would make a strong recommendation that the levee proposed for the protection of Buckingham be built on the east side of the oxbow. • Fischer: The Flood Plain Task Force tried to get a strong statement that we won't use fill to take land in the flood plain out of the flood plain. We don't want to create developable land. • Fischer: We need to come across as a board to encourage the following of the master plan in regard to a library and performing arts center. • Fischer: I had some misgivings about the rebuilding of the Atzlan Community center because of the old landfill. • Miller: There are forces that are still working to get a baseball field, that's where they want the stadium. I'd prefer the center stay on that site. • Fischer: I believe the present use of the site is the most appropriate use of that site from many different standpoints, including natural resources. • Miller: Any other conceived use for that site would increase the VMT in the area. • Miller: I keep coming back to the Poudre River Festival, and the scheduled raft rides. Those folks had to carry the rafts to get out. I'm wondering, unless there are water rights, why would we go to the expense? They will only use it two or three months a year. If the feasibility study is done objectively these concerns will be fully addressed. • Ohlson: We should mention that we shouldn't do the downtown river corridor at the expense of Mid -town and Campus West. Fischer will draft a memo and email it to all board members. All comments should be back to Randy by Wednesday. Natural ResourcesAdvisory Board July 5, 2000 Page 7 Taft Hill Road Project • Ohlson: There is a lot of community opposition to the project. I don't think a lot of board input is warranted. It is a clear cut case of people trying to protect their own turf. They don't have legitimate complaints. Those members who attended the last meeting had a full presentation. • Murphy: I question if this is something we need to be giving input on. I'm sympathetic to the land owners, but I'm not sure where as a board we come into that issue. • Waksom: The issue is the width of the road, and they were concerned about losing some trees. • Fischer: The natural areas conflicts are with the detention area and trails. • Murphy: It seemed like a net increase in habitat. We're always faced with people who don't want a trail near their property. • Fischer: Does this board want to weigh in or not? My big concern is that if Taft Hill doesn't get built to the standards I think it needs to be built to, someday Overland Trail will go right through Pineridge. • Shoemaker: There's obviously a lot of pros and cons. Staff is trying to not lose the functionality of the whole system. Kelly Ohlson said the board needs to start getting feedback on their memo's and suggestions. It builds accountability, it's a fair request. We need to get responses on things, we need to get answers. Committee Reports Natural areas committee — There will be a meeting on Wednesday, July 12a'. Announcements Shoemaker: The official opening of Cottonwood Hollow Natural Area will be July 22, at 9:00 a.m. It will be very low key. Master naturalists will be doing interpretative walks. Rodriguez: A newspaper ad for homes at Fossil Creek had a picture of a woman in a buffer area with her dog off -leash. Review Council's Six Month Planning Calendar No comments. Review Action/Tickler Log Shoemaker and Fischer will review and update the log. Review Future Agenda Items July: Schaaf Conservation Easement Au ust: Nix Maintenance Center & Alternate Sites Kelly Ohlson would like to have a work session to discuss a backlog of items. The work session will be held Wednesday, July 19. There is no need for staff preparation or Natural Resources A isory Board July 5, 2000 Page 8 minutes. Phil Murphy feels there should be some sort of written document of what was discussed for the benefit of those who cannot attend. Kelly Ohlson mentioned that there seems to be a problem with absences of a couple of members. Review of Minutes June 7, 2000: Page 6, bottom of page, next to last bullet. Delete the 2°d and P sentences. Page 10, bottom of page: Change "I thought we were ambushed" to "I thought we were misled as to Parks & Recreation representation." Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.