Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 12/06/2000M.INUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE December 6, 2000 For Reference: Randy Fischer, NRAB Chair - 491-6303 Bill Bertschy, Council Liaison - 484-0181 Tom Shoemaker, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Kelly Ohlson, Reagan Waskom, Bill Miller, Nate Donovan, Linda Knowlton, Don Rodriguez, Randy Fischer, Phil Murphy Board Members Absent None Staff Present Natural Resources Dept: Terry Klahn, Mark Sears, Tom Shoemaker, Karen Manci Advance Planning: Ken Waido Guests Sally Craig, Planning and Zoning Board Adam, CSU student Agenda Review No changes. I-25 Plan, Ken Waido, Karen Manci Waido said that two I-25 corridor plans are being prepared. One is a regional plan, which includes six towns, two county governments, CDOT, and the Metro Planning Organization. The regional plan covers an area 32 miles long and 2 miles wide, from Budweiser on the north to Berthoud on the south. A Land Use Plan was not acceptable to all of the entities involved so the regional plan does not address alnd use. However, Fort Collins believes a land use plan is critical for our segment of the I-25 corridor. The I-25 Subarea Plan is a joint effort between the City and the County focusing on the area from Budweiser on south to Windsor. The regional effort will focus on three elements: 1. Design standards for development in the corridor 2. Transportation Plan 3. Environmental standards Natural Resources Advisory Board December 6, 2000 Page 2 The subarea plan will have much more detail. The process will end up with a proposed amendment to the Structure Plan. It is critical there is a transportation component commensurate with land use patterns. We have been working on this plan for about a year now, and have reached the "alternative analysis" stage of the planning process. We have been presenting our three alternatives to various groups. The eventual plan will probably include components taken from all three of the alternatives. Waido gave a brief description of each plan, including potential actions resulting from the various plans. Discussion • Fischer: If I read this correctly, the UGA boundary on Alternative 1 juts out to County Road 5, and then goes back toward the interstate. Is that the existing boundary? Yes. One of the implementation techniques would be to pull that UGA back to the interstate. • Ohlson: From what I studied, this appears to be a road system, not a transportation system. It's a road system for single occupancy vehicles rather than a transportation system. Yes, on Scenario 1 that's correct, on Scenario 3 there's more focus on transit and an activity center. One of the key concepts agreed upon in the regional plan is the concept of activity centers. Instead of stripping things out along the interstate, the activity should be concentrated in certain centers where transit is more viable. It would be sort of a neighborhood -based commercial activity center. • Fischer: I assume the areas north and east of Prospect will be sewered by Boxelder. Do they currently sewer any areas east of I-25? • Miller: Would Mountain Vista be serviced by them? • Donovan: How does that work when the City grows? Does the City negotiate and take over the infrastructure? They are special purpose districts. They charge their own fees and rates. The City is not considering providing service east ofLemay. • Donovan: Is there some requirement that they must be built to existing or proposed City standards? • Fischer: That's a good point. If areas relying on antiquated technology are developed, the citizens and taxpayers of the City of Fort Collins will foot the bill for upgrading that plant. • Knowlton: I've heard from other sources there is already a preferred alternative. Your sources are wrong. • Knowlton: Clearly in Alternative 3 you would have a lot more residential construction. Doesn't that imply that perhaps Alternative 1 would amount to restricted growth, or would all three accommodate projected growth at the same rate? The capacities of the scenarios differ significantly. Natural Resources Advisory Board December 6, 2000 Page 4 Fischer: I view these alternatives as a litmus test as to what it will do to the ultimate population of the City of Fort Collins. The only one that meets my test is Alternative 1. First of all, by expanding the UGA boundary you give people the legitimate expectation that their property values are higher than in the other alternatives. It's a massive giving to property owners where the land is already owned by speculators. There's a myth that agriculture land preservation will be a part of the plan. Most of the land along I-25 is owned by big holding companies and out of state investors. I'm not an agriculture preservation specialist, but if we were to follow a policy in the first alternative, I don't know if you would still see agriculture land preserved. Fischer: The density will be much lower, and the population will be less. In alternatives two and three we're going to inherit substandard infrastructure. Most of the development has occurred without thought to stormwater. It will cost a lot of money to upgrade the services. My point is, make it clear to the County the City is not going to move it's UGA boundary out there. The County might take a closer look in the future when they realize they may have to foot the bill for stormwater and road improvements. We ought to fix our UGA in stone. Everything that occurs out there will be County, and they will have to live with it. Ohlson: In Alternative 1 you have a lot of value laden stuff. Need to be consistent in our values, don't leave off the bad stuff in Alternatives 2 and 3. This is a very serious thing, it surfaces all the time in this organization. Also, you have to define what low density residential is. Fischer: What do you need from us? When will Council see this? I don't expect a recommendation tonight. As a Board, you can write letters, call or meet with me. Council won't see this until late spring. I'll be back when I have a preferred alternative. A Growth Management Committee meeting, will be scheduled to discuss this topic. All interested board members are welcome to attend. Draft Easement Policy, Tom Shoemaker Shoemaker said he shared board comments with Council Growth Management. They are in favor of a strong policy. Chuck Wanner wants us to strengthen the statement about water quality protection in terms of drainage. Karen Weitkunat would like a map outlining natural areas and open space. Chuck also asked for some sense of how many easements we are talking about. We're still doing internal work with the attorneys and Right of Way. As of yesterdays conversation we're still on the same page, some non -substantive changes. I don't know how long this will take, our current direction is to make sure our ducks are lined up in case a legal strategy is needed. I'm planning to take this to Council in January. Ohlson: Do you think there will be slippage past the April election? No, my sense is there is considerable momentum in senior city staff and the majority of Council to get this completed. Natural Resources Advisory Board December 6, 2000 Page 5 • Rodriguez: Any preliminary numbers on number of easements? It's probably approaching a dozen that we're working on, or have been made aware of. • Fischer: It will be difficult to give a projection of future easements, there could be dozens, or hundreds. • Knowlton: Is the saber rattling mainly in regard to procedures, and not policy. The best summary is we don't know for sure. My reading is it's believed there wont be any easements without condemnation. We're working on legal strategies and trying to get communication to occur. It's a little confused and political at the moment. • Donovan: There's got to be a standard for good faith negotiation. • Shoemaker: At this point we don't have an actual legal proceeding. We have rumors and statements. Taft Hill Update, Mark Sears There are no new updates. No progress has been made, but negotiations continue. • Donovan: Are the negotiations being handled by Parks Planning because they negotiate for the trails? Yes, it's their project to build the trail. • Fischer: Have they caved on the raised medians? No, I don't think so. • Fischer: This is interesting because the property owners still have signs out. It concerns me that there may be negotiations going on behind the scenes that would weaken, or somehow make whatever Council approved less effective. (Shoemaker will follow up.) • Fischer: The schedule for design is to start early 2001. Construction is planned to begin in the summer, so design is well under way right now. Sorry I don't have more information, I thought our interests were in the trail. • Craig: The Transportation Dept. was adamant the medians were necessary for safety reasons. I'd be very surprised if staff would support Council taking the medians out. Review of Minutes: November 1, 2000: Middle of page 3, 1" bullet under discussion: change "it's your responsibility...." To "volunteer to tell...." Correction to Recycling/Pay-As-You-Throw Update: When solid waste reporting and multi -family statistics were discussed it was incorrectly stated that Ram Waste had not reported. It was actually Waste Management who had not reported. Also, the City ordinance does not require haulers to provide customer participation numbers, only tonnage's of recyclable materials and solid waste. The minutes were unanimously approved as amended. November 4, 2000: Page 4, bottom: Ohlson: change "where are we with wildlife issues, how far will they go up" to "will there be a net gain or a net loss with regard to wildlife issues and habitat". The minutes were unanimously approved as amended. Natural Resources Advisory Board December 6, 2000 Page 6 Committee Reports Solid Waste: A report was distributed in lieu of a meeting. Phil Murphy will talk to Susie Gordon about changing the standing meeting time. Trails: There will be a meeting on Tuesday, December 12. Natural Areas: There will be a meeting on Thursday, December 14. Growth Management: To be scheduled. Announcements • Shoemaker: We have concurrence from Windsor, Timnath, and Larimer County for a Separator Study. A grant application has been submitted to the Department of Local Affairs. The money would be used to hire a staff person for Timanth. We have letter; of support from a broad spectrum for the grant. • Shoemaker: Annexations — The City and County did quick revisions to the IGA between the City and County. 1) A policy statement for the county that would help prevent people from carving off 35 acre chunks between the County and another piece of property to avoid annexation. 2) The IGA allows annexation by the City of Fort Collins outside the UGA boundary if it's to annex natural area or open land property. Getting those lands into the City helps from a management perspective. • Shoemaker: Press release to request nominations for the naming of the natural areas along E. Prospect. • Shoemaker: Budget Update — Council did adopt most of the NRD requests, including an air quality monitor, development review position, and $100,000 for the recycling center. The Pollution Prevention position was funded with dollars that include $45,000 of Utility Funding, and $20,000 of General Fund which will allow for a''/3 to '/< contractual position for one year. We believe we need long term funding, but we were pleased something was there. • Shoemaker: The survey flags at Duck Lake are no need for concern. • Shoemaker: Action Log — Water Policy Memo — Email Shoemaker with any comments regarding the draft memo. • Sears: There was an article in the Forum giving compliments to the rangers with regard to helping reduce the number of transients on trails and in natural areas. • Donovan: Last night was the first public meeting for the Larimer County Open Land Master Plan. There was support for acquisition of open lands, whether it be fee simple or conservation easements. It was a good meeting, with lots of good input. Council Six Month Planning Calendar • December 12, 2000 —10-year Capital Improvement Fund (Shoemaker will provide a copy of what was submitted.) • Annexation Policy — upcoming study session • Natural Areas Easement Policy — Unscheduled study session — So far don't see a need for a study session, think it will go directly to Council. • Sally Craig said Council will discuss the Walmart annexation in the DDA the first of the year. They will discuss how that extra money is to be spent. The NRAB should Natural Resources Advisory Board December 6, 2000 Page 7 weigh in. River restoration is where the money should go. Right now they're planning on spending it on streets and transportation. Shoemaker said he could have some bullet points and/or a draft letter for the Natural Areas committee meeting next week. Rodriguez will get a copy of the Coloradoan articles from Sally Craig. Review Action Log Shoemaker reminded the board there is now a short Action Log and a longer Agenda Setting document. Add: 1. Growth Management Meeting — recommendation on I-25 Corridor 2. Staff to double check Taft Hill Road Project • Design and construction timing • Direction still the same? 3. Letter by staff as a draft to Natural Areas Committee on tax increment financing on DDA annexation. 4. hiformation on Capital Projects Review Future Agenda Items January 3, 2000: • Formal recommendation on I-25 Plan • Finalize the Canal Importation Recommendation • Easement Policy New Business • Ohlson: Stay on top of the Capital Funds issue. • Ohlson: The Pollution Prevention position was the worst example of public policy I've seen in some time. In the 2"d reading it's down to 48% of the original funding. First Mike Byrne killed it, then he gutted it. Then he went on and on about what a wonderful thing this is. It was the most cynical thing I've seen. You'd have thought he was the proponent. • Ohlson: The Environmental News lead with the glass recycling headline. I didn't know this has been going on for two years. • Ohlson: Construction debris program: They agreed that everyone shouldn't be honored equally, but when you read the ads everyone is listed equally. It makes sense to honor people relative to their involvement in the program. • Ohlson: Do we underplay "brown cloud days"? Why is it we don't create press releases on days when the air is really bad. We should be seizing the opportunity to get the word out. It's not the departments fault when the air is bad, but I think historically some people feel that way. We need to give people a reason to combine trips and car pool. Shoemaker said staff concurs in principal. One of things on the agenda setting schedule is a for an overview and opportunity for comment on education and outreach. Rodriguez said there is a fellow who does good/bad photos. • • Natural Resources Advisory Board December 6, 2000 Page 8 Shoemaker said there is the air quality web cam, and last year there was a photo contest. • Sears: Mentioned an article about air quality in the Coloradoan where Margit Hentschel was quoted. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Natural Resources Advisory Board December 6, 2000 Page 3 • Ohlson: Many of us see Alternative 3 as an encouragement and subsidy for growth, rather than viewing Alternative 1 as restrictive. • Shoemaker: Will you address any desirable changes in density in that category, something less than the county's zoning, in terms of density as a separator? We're dealing with a series of optional ways a community can select to implement that standard. Most of the property owners and residents in the area are not so concerned about density as they are road improvements and other infrastructure. • Ohlson: It seems we start with the roads and work around that, instead of starting with land, natural areas, wetlands, and agricultural land. That was a pretty strong sentiment, from a lot of people. • Ohlson: Joe Frank confirmed that he thinks the numbers are low. It's '/< to '/2 billion dollars for the road network. It would be cheaper to buy the land and lease it as agricultural land. There should be an overall funding mechanism for all aspects of the plan, not just the transportation aspect. It should be real money. It'll be a hybrid of some kind. I don't buy putting in a side road to save congestion on I-25. It's about Windsor, hi -tech folks getting to the Harmony corridor. • Ohlson: The ag land things need to be permanent, not as land banking for land speculators. • Ohlson: Runoff standards can also affect flood plains. • Ohlson: Most of the people from last night's meeting aren't buying the concept of the parallel road. It's enabling and subsidy of growth. I personally believe the '/a to %x billion dollars will become '/< billion dollars to make one chunk of the interstate prettier. • Knowlton: You memo doesn't mention when the preferred alternative will be identified. We would like to see it to be prepared the end of January, or early February. Don't know ifwe'll meet that schedule. The whole plan is slated to be finished near the end ofspring. When we have a preferred alternative we will be back again, and go through the same type of review. • Donovan: Is the idea that the subarea plan is not waiting for the eight entities to get together? In the beginning we were, but iffor whatever reason the process bogs down we cold break off and go alone. • Murphy: I certainly agree with Kelly about who will pay for it. If they put the new high school out there, there will be development anyway. I would like to see some kind of planned development, but I don't want to pay for it. Also, there has to be some thought given to viewsheds. There needs to be some mix, land left open for agriculture and ranching in the corridor. • Shoemaker: Randy's comment about the infrastructure is a good one. The water/sewer line capacity is important. As this moves forward find a way to look carefully at what lines are in place, and what might be needed. If there's a package, tie it all together. • Miller: It would be interesting if someone could pull out a reasonable estimate of what it's going to cost over the next 25 years. What is it going to cost the taxpayer to provide the services everyone expects? It's not just the initial cost, it's the continuous cost.