Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 11/01/2000MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE November 1, 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 Board Members Absent Randy Fischer, Phil Murphy Staff Present Natural Resources Dept: Tom Shoemaker, Terry Klahn, Mark Sears, Susie Gordon, Shirley Bruns Guests Sue Ellen Mae, Larimer County Natural Resources Steve Ryder, Larimer County Planning Agenda Review Ohlson: New Business — Locust Street Outfall — Pollution Prevention — Martinez Park — I-25 boondoggle Recycling/Pay-As-You-Throw Update, Susie Gordon Annual Report: This report represents a summary of data collected in 1999 from trash haulers which is required to be reported every six months. In a lot of communities there isn't any quantification of waste stream. We get calls from around the country requesting this information. This is the best information we have, but we understand it's not flawless. The trash haulers do their best to get the information. We hope the data gets better with some changes that have been made to the recording form. One of the biggest haulers found a significant percent of his customers live outside the city limits. These people are eliminated from the tally. Natural Resources AL..sory Board November 1, 2000 Page 2 Discussion • Waskom: On page four, why did the percent of multli-family recycling jump up? • Bruns: It's a correction in the reporting. • Miller: It's a percentage of complexes, not the number of family units. You may have one family in a complex of 40 recycling. • Waskom: So, in 60% of the complexes there is no recycling at all? • Miller: Recycling is not required in multi -family housing. • Gordon: In development review we always urge them to add enough space in a dumpster area to allow recycling to happen. • Donovan: Are some haulers more willing than others to get the process of multi- family housing recycling started? • Gordon: There are one or two haulers who don't provide any multi -family service. We also see one or two who show aggressiveness, and are eager. Those are Waste Management and GSI. • Miller: There needs to be a City Plan amendment on design requirements so the trash areas can accommodate recycling. • Susie: We talk about that in development review. • Donovan: Are you finding that developers are receptive? • Gordon: Yes, they are. People expect recycling, it's a competitive edge. It would be interesting to see the data of how many actually took us up on the suggestion. • Donovan: I'd be interested, working on an amendment may not be necessary. • Gordon: If it's poor, we could come back to Bill's suggestion. • Donovan: We talked in committee about data collection and how to improve accuracy in reporting. Are the haulers moving toward a system other than a route sheet that goes into storage to track units of trash and recycling, or is it still the collector in the truck. • Bruns: As far as I know it's the collector in the truck. • Gordon: There's good technology out there, maybe we could get a demonstration. • Ohlson: In the conclusion it says; "we're using the best information available". It would be more accurate to say "the solid waste industry doesn't work hard to provide accurate data". • Ohlson: This is now my 5`s population number. The organization needs to come up with one number. They're all over the map. We need to work on systemic change. It's about time to start working, legislatively or not, on the multi -family issue. I'm not clear on Ram not breaking out multi -family or single family homes. I thought we could require things like that in the licensing. Are they defying us? • Bruns: It's in the ordinance that they have to give us the number. It's probably our fault that we haven't followed up. • Ohlson: This isn't about the people, it's about change. We must get better numbers. We need to get them to comply. • Donovan: Was this plan developed in recent changes to the ordinance, or has this been submitted for several years? • Gordon: It's been submitted for several years. Natural Resource•Advfsory Board • November 1, 2000 Page 3 • Donovan: Is this part of what you will use to do the audit for the Home Owners Assocation? • Gordon: We'll have some new questions when we talk to the haulers. • Bruns: We're working with Linda Samualson in the Licensing Department. That will be an actual part of the license form. They will have to return the information to get their license renewed. • Ohlson: I hope you talk with the County and to try to get them moving forward on PAYT. You guys have a lot of the work done. • Gordon: Loveland adopted our ordinance almost wholesale. • Shoemaker: On the political side of things, it wouldn't hurt for those of you who talk with Latimer County EAB to encourage that change. • Gordon: It would be helpful if it was consistent across the County. Glass Recycling: There has been an unfortunate turn of events over the past two years. We started putting pressure on the County to see what it would take to change their policy about glass re -manufacturing. The County made a business decision based on one isolated incident of a load being rejected by Coors. The folks from Coors bottling plant have agreed to take pilot loads of glass. Amber glass commands a high price. Mixed glass is not being recycled, it's used for secondary purposes such as backfill in construction projects and daily cover at the land fill. We know we owe an explanation to the public, we don't want them to lose confidence. Discussion • Ohlson: If anyone ever asks, we need to respond to those people honestly and completely. But, I'm not sure it's your responsibility to tell them it's being used as cover. My gut level reaction is to answer questions honestly, but we don't have to explain every detail of every operation in the City. You don't have any responsibility to put it in the news. • Gordon: Part of the reason is that the market doesn't always work. People have an expectation that materials are recycled, but the truth is there isn't a market. It's part of the hard truth. When we did roundtable talks with the haulers they asked us to convey to people that recycling doesn't pay. People think the haulers are getting rich off of this. The article for the Environmental News is to help people understand it better, and learn what they can do to help. As far as the press release, Bruce never got any calls. • Miller: The committee recommended to Steve Gillete there needs to be a continuous, ongoing education effort made by the County and the City. A number of people are trying to recycle plastic grocery sacks. We're out here in the middle of nowhere. If the market forces are not there to make it cost effective the alternative is the landfill. Much of our population comes from other parts of the country. • Ohlson: You guys could help the County, their signage at the landfill is not the greatest. • Ohlson: We built the building for this private company, but they get to determine what's recycled? Natural Resources A, sory Board November 1, 2000 Page 4 • Gordon: It's a joint decision. Their contract ends in 2004. They do have more control than we wish they had. We're at a disadvantage with this contract. • Sheomaker: There was a lot of uncertainty of if the community would respond. Originally, New England Critic was the successful bidder, they had a large number of safeguards built into the contract. Home Owners Association: We don't have much feel on how the PAYT is administered. If they're paying their trash bill on a six month or annual basis, how do they come to those individual charges? The ordinance was amended about a year ago. Those amendments were passed after consultation with the haulers. We made a lot of changes. Any auditing will be done on a complaint bases. Everyone understands they will potentially be reviewed. Carrie Daggett has urged us to be a neutral 3`d party. The Solid Waste Committee saw the draft outline. Discussion • Ohlson: Who's doing the work on this? • Shoemaker: The bottom line is we've forwarded the proposal to the City Manager's office, he'll decide if we're doing the audit or not. • Donovan: Our role would be better as informative. We don't want the perception that the NRAB is pushing hard. • Ohlson: It would be nice to have a real PAYT policy. We should either end PAYT, or have a real policy. Expanded Recycling Center Drop Off Site: We had a very generous offer from CSU for land on Center Avenue. It's in the floodplain and the floodway. It's a great site in terms of community location but we don't know if it's appropriate. Discussion • Shoemaker: We'd like to get some feedback from a location perspective. It's a great site. I have said let's look at other sites because our department has lobbied for strong regulations along the floodplains and floodway. It doesn't feel right. • Gordon: We haven't said forget about it. We're trying to think outside of the box. • Knowlton: Have you looked at other sites? • Gordon: Yes, we've started looking. • Miller: How many acres do you need? • Gordon: Probably about two acres. • Ohlson: The floodway caught my attention. I don't know what kind of floodway this is. For political reasons, the City probably shouldn't do this. • Shoemaker: We've asked the Stormwater folks to give us the depth and velocity. • Ohlson: It's a real issue. I think it's a deal killer. • Gordon: We may have to tell them we appreciate the offer, but we feel overwhelmed by the barriers. • Ohlson: You can tell them everyone is saddened, but we can't say one thing and do another. Natural Resource Advisory Board • November 1, 2000 Page 5 Shoemaker: Another idea is in the next round of Land Use Code revisions. A regulatory requirement about providing something like this at activity centers and major retail centers. If you think about it, why would they object. It's bringing people in the complex. The Solid Waste Committee meeting scheduled for November is cancelled. The next Solid Waste Committee meeting will be December 4 at 12:00 noon. Draft Work Plan for 2001, Nate Donovan • Page 2, last paragraph: Change to: We look forward to a productive year of volunteer service to Council, the citizens of Fort Collins, and the environment. • Page 3, Number 7: Add: General Management Guidelines for Natural Areas • Page 4, Number 11: Add Fossil Creek Park construction monitoring. • Page 4, Number 1: Solid Waste: Add the new expanded recycling drop-off site. • Page 4, Number 2: Add Fossil Creek, Spring Creek, and the Poudre River, • Page 4, Number 4: Change to "Monitoring and follow through" • Page 5, Number 1: change House Street to Howes Street • Fischbach is misspelled on the first page. The Workplan was approved with the edits listed above. Donovan said we'll have the 2000 Annual Report for the December meeting. Kelly Ohlson suggested discussing the Natural Areas Easement Policy before acquisitions. Natural Area Easement Policy, Tom Shoemaker, Mark Sears Shoemaker said we're trying to move through this as quickly as possible. Would like to get feedback tonight. There will be discussions with other City departments, the City Attorney, and with Council Growth Management on November 14. Will come back to the December meeting of this board with the revised draft for a formal recommendation on what's presented then. We will take this to Council on December 19 if at all possible. • Ohlson: What major points of Randy's didn't make it into this? Generally, I think most of what Randy had in his draft is in here. Under types of facilities it wasn't clear to me in Randy's draft whether the board said it was ok to have easements in road right-of-ways where the roads cross. That is the preferred place for easements, there was potential for misunderstanding. • Ohlson: Don't want to be an enabler, or have an unintentional loophole. • Donovan: This is a policy, that we hope and expect will be adhered to. It's not a regulation or a law. It won't be followed strictly. Shoemaker discussed the differences between his draft and Randy's version. ❑ Randy said no new streets, I said unless they are in the Master Street Plan. To the best I could determine there are no new streets on the Master Street plan that will Natural Resources A sory Board November 1, 2000 Page 6 cross existing natural areas, and no new streets that will cross areas that are anticipated to be purchased. The Master Street Plan can be changed. There are many places where future road widening projects are contemplated. ❑ Randy did not address drainage and flood control. ❑ It's clear that we have to look at alternatives, but don't want to look at three if there aren't three, and don't want to limit ourselves to three if there are really more. ❑ Didn't incorporate the cost benefits. I'm not sure how we're going to do that. Randy and I are scheduled to talk on Friday. ❑ Added land use consistency and coordination with other entities. ❑ Added compliance with existing easements — If you've got an easement and you haven't followed through on it, a new easement request won't be considered. ❑ Resource protection standards ❑ Compensation — Randy had language about verifying it against other things that would be part of the appraisal process. ❑ Application requirements and review process — figure out the right point in the application process to bring it to the Board and Council. Discussion • Donovan: There's no magic number of three alternatives. There need to be more than one or two to determine the cost spread. • Ohlson: The general direction for compensation is for staff to determine what the public should be compensated for. It should be a fair, legitimate and appropriate cost. • Miller: It should be the fair market value as determined by standard appraisal techniques. • Sears: The normal appraisal would be at it's highest and best use. That could be awkward too. The land value by itself may be nothing, but the damage to a riparian area could be huge. • Miller: That's why you have a lease and restoration. • Sears: When we do an appraisal we try to calculate the damage. Should negotiate for the highest possible mitigation. • Ohlson: I just want to make sure the numbers are crunched for the short, intermediate and long terms. • Shoemaker: The policy shouldn't contain actual compensation values. It should give direction to get compensated for the real cost. • Sears: We do need to address compensation for damages. • Waksom: In the next issue will we see a breakdown of the categories for compensation? I would like to see them included in the policy. • Knowlton: As long as it says, "including but not limited to". • Miller: What if the lease holder has to come back in to make repairs? • Shoemaker: The easement is granted for construction and repairs, but not for replacement. It's a departure from easements in the past. • Sears: We're saying the permanent easement is there, and will forever have the right for an 8" line. If they want to come in with a bigger line they would need to compensate for the damage. Natural Resource%dvisory Board • November 1, 2000 Page 7 • Ohlson: At some point I would like to discuss what percent of your time is spent on easements. It could get real busy. I just want reassurance that these things don't become a'/2 FIE in order to enable development. • Shoemaker: We intend to get to a point to cover staff costs. The reality is sometimes these things are very time consuming. Natural areas monies should not be expected to pay for this. • Donovan: We're talking about easements across natural areas. Maybe some natural areas monies should be used, but it shouldn't be a full FTE. It's a management issue. • Rodriguez: What is the reluctance on the cost benefit issue? • Shoemaker: It's partly because I'm not an economist. I'm struggling with how we determine a universal cost. What are we comparing it to? • Ohlson: I don't think these things are that complicated, you just have to come up with some models. • Sears: There are so many varieties of improvements that will be proposed. The benefit will be very nebulous. I think it will come back to haunt us more often than help us. • Knowlton: Does the City have cost benefit procedures for other processes? • Shoemaker: Yes. We can research this, but when you start getting into the cost to the natural area and community, they're real costs, but they are more difficult to quantify. • Sears: What Tom's trying to get at is to get the developer to show the cost may double, triple or quadruple, but when you take the benefit it may only cost each customer a quarter. • Ohlson: I don't care if it's a thousand, or ten thousand It's not about those home owners. • Sears: That's why I don't think we really care about the cost benefit analysis. But, I can see why they might care. • Donovan: We want this policy to put us in the best possible position. A cost benefit in a policy is a red flag. We don't want to be attracting attention that we don't need. • Miller: The citizens of Fort Collins should not be responsible for enabling what happens outside the Fort Collins area. • Donovan: That's land use consistency. • Ohlson: There's a concern that's been communicated to me. Historically the City has sent policies and plans out to the districts and the developers. When they come back they're a mere shadow of the original. • Shoemaker: We will absolutely review this with people in the environmental community too. I took the step to make sure the City Manager had seen this and was comfortable with the direction we going. There are a number of issues we need to work on. Carrie's not happy with everything in here. • Donovan: I want to make sure we're clear on what across and adjacent to a natural area is. • Shoemaker: If it's in the road right of way, or what will be the future road right of way, that's where we want those things to go. If it's deviating from that, then it's across. We want to be careful on timing and design. Natural Resources Ak _sory Board November 1, 2000 Page 8 • Sears: When you look at street standards, sidewalk to sidewalk is the street right of way. That's something that we should look at as reasonable. • Donovan: In the last sentence of the alternative analysis, the three alternatives seems to get lost. I hope that sticks in all of this. Do special districts always have adopted master plans or service plans for areas? • Shoemaker: It might vary between districts. • Donovan: How do you demonstrate compliance with existing easements? Is it their burden or the City's to check on compliance? • Shoemaker: I see it as our burden. • Donovan: It goes to institutional memory. • Sears: This is the one iron fist we've got to make them comply. The applicants must have complied with the requirements of other easements they possess. Until they do they're not going to be granted a new easement. • Donovan: On page 1, the compensation policy, how did you guys come up with that number? • Sears: We looked at the cost of weed control, mowing three times a years, plus herbicide and reseeding one additional time. • Donovan: Mark, Tom and Randy did a good job on getting this going. There's been a lot of work go into this. Acquisitions Miller Trucking Property — East Lincoln (referred to as the triangle) A representative of the estate called the City and asked if there were a willing seller would the City look at buying it. The asking price is $416,000 for 2.9 acres. Approximately 1.1 acres is in the flood fringe. Our recommendation is not to purchase this, but we wanted to be clear that when this comes in for development there won't be a 300' buffer. It will probably be between 100' and 200'. • Ohlson: It's a no brainer. It should not be bought with natural areas monies. That's why we fought for the regulations. • Donovan: Is that a Brownfield pilot property. Not yet. • Shoemaker: From a wildlife habitat perspective we've got the entire other side of the river. • Donovan: What's the current use? Warehouse, trucking company. South Timberline Road. North of Harmony Nice wetland, 4-6 acres on the north side. It's been for sale forever. If money were never an object, or if the cost were 1/3 I'd be inclined to say let's do it. It's a great little area. But, Mark and I are on the same page - four to six acres at $700,000 we shouldn't be looking at. • Ohlson: It's a no brainer for me, we're 2 for 2. • Miller: I'd hate to see commercial development there. • Shoemaker: They do have 100' setback. Natural ResourcefAdvfsory Board • November 1, 2000 Page 9 Taft Hill Road, North Boundary of the Land fill A lady approached the County who referred her to us. She's trying to sell a house on 35 acres. She was approached by a developer who thought they could sub divide. She would need to keep her house and she could sell us the remainder. We approached her with $1000 an acre for that land. She asked for $75,000, but I don't think she'll hold out for that. She will expect us to come up from $30,000. When we started talking about this it was "no". Our overall strategy there is to get conservation easements. I am comfortable with this one because it's contiguous with Cathy Fromme Prairie. • Rodriguez: That will set a precedent. • Sears: If it were not contiguous to CFP I don't think we'd be learning that direction. If we were to get a conservation easement, development would be prevented, but how would the land be used? If we own it we can run a fence around it. There's an incredible ravine, and fossil outcroppings. • Ohlson: I'd say no because of the other parcels. It sets a precedent. • Miller: It gets utilized by ferruginous hawks. • Ohlson: Every parcel we'll look at has something we like. That's not the game we deal in. • Sears: She's selling the whole thing, has had it on the market for about a month. • Shoemaker: It's always good to look at motivations. Is this advancing our goals? • Rodriguez: With respect to negotiating a deal it's precedent setting, but it's land we should have some management presence on because it's contiguous to CFP. • Ohlson: If I had a place up there and you paid one or two land owners and wanted a conservation easement from me I wouldn't do it. • Sears: If we get conservation easements on the other 35 acre parcels it will say we won't subdivide, or add another structure. It won't say we won't graze, or use 4- wheelers. We're not going to get any of that with a conservation easement. • Ohlson: Be aware, really consider the ramifications. • Rodriguez: Conservation easements are the way to go when creating buffers. Grazing is a legitimate buffer for natural areas. • Sears: I'm inclined to buy it. If someone comes to us and the price is reasonable, where we can add 20-30 acres for 1-2 thousand an acre, that's a good buy. Her motivation is honorable, she did approach us, she could have sold to a developer. • Knowlton: Maybe the Natural Areas committee should go look at it. • Ohlson: I just want these guys to consider all of the ramifications • Shoemaker: I'm still tom on this. It's a special piece, and the price low. It's attractive to me. But, I counter balance that against the potential that the other 24 land owners will say "I'll never do a conservation easement". We absolutely don't want to own all of that land. Knowlton, Waskom and Miller think the property should be purchased. Ohlson: We have to consider the chess board. I have a bad feeling on this one. I must be missing something. This could shoot a huge corridor of potential conservation easements. Natural ResourAdvfsory Board • November 1, 2000 Page 11 Included in packet Review Future Agenda Items November 15, 2000: Canal Importation Project Natural Areas Maintenance Center December 6, 2000: I-25 Plan, Joe Frank Easement Policy Discussion Add I-25 Zoning to the November 15 (East Prospect) Annual Report Brownfield Grant New Business Kelly Ohlson • Council member Byrne gutted the Pollution Prevention position. • Locust Outfall — Will we get in involved in that? Shoemaker said the Locust Street Outfall is designed and under construction. Utilities made the decision not to review it with the Board. Manci and Sears have been involved in the design. The overall foot print is a lot smaller than what they had originally proposed. The imprint on the ground is fairly reasonable. They did as good a job as they could. • Does anyone have information about microwave towers and associated environmental concerns? Natural Resources A sory Board November 1, 2000 Page 10 • Waskom: It's right next to a piece of land that we really value. The features are unique. Review of Minutes: October 4, 2000: Bill Miller made a motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Don Rodriguez. The motion passed unanimously. • Ohlson: In the middle of page 4 where it refers to the guy on horseback. Is he just defying us? Everyone seems to know about him. • Shoemaker: He'll be ticketed if he's ever caught. We know who he is, but we've never had a ranger and him there at the same time. I'm with you, I'd love to bust this guy. • Ohlson: It's a joke. What's the point of 3 rangers if everyone knows this guy rides when and were he wants. Committee Reports Natural Areas, Don Rodriguez: Walk-through at Lee Martinez Park to discuss the proposed P&R development. We're in agreement with most things. We do have some concerns with paving and the hardening of some sites. I trust the concerns we addressed as a committee will be taken back to P&R by Mark. Spoke with a representative of the Lee Martinez neighborhood group, he expressed some of the same concerns on carving up the area. There are concerns about extending turf and changing the character of the north end of the park to look more groomed and cultivated. He does believe there needs to be a free play turf area. Craig and Marty suggested using some existing pasture that's in the Lee Martinez farm that's not being utilized, west of the playground. The biggest challenge is the hayride. It would be wider than a foot path type trail, but doesn't need to be a 10 foot wide concrete trail. Sears said the next step is to meet with Marty and Craig and see what they'll agree to. If there's a huge gap then we'll have to have a small joint committee and try to work this out. Next meeting: Thursday, December 14, 2000. Futures Committee: Shoemaker and Fischer met to discuss a "futures list". Working on getting this information into a data base. Kelly Ohlson would like to be added to this committee. Solid Waste: The next meeting is December 4, 2000. Kelly Ohlson would like to be removed from this committee. Council Six Month Planning Calendar November 28: Legislative Agenda for 2001 (Shoemaker will send the agenda as it is now) December 12: Taft Hill Update 10-year Capital Improvement Plan December 19: Natural Areas Easements ? (very tight time frame, may get pushed out to January) Review Action Log