Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 02/14/2001MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE February 14,2001 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, Nate Donovan, Linda Knowlton, Don Rodriguez, Bonnie Pierce, Steve Ryder, Phil Murphy Board Members Absent Randy Fischer, Reagan Waskom Staff Present Natural Resources Dept: Tom Shoemaker, Mark Sears, Terry Klahn Guests Bill Bertschy, Council Liaison Agenda Review • Ohlson will have questions and comments under New Business. Boards & Commissions — 2001 Work Plans — Council Comments on NRAB Plan, Bill Bertschy Bertschy thanked the board for all of their hard work and the opportunity to talk with them about the Work Plan. The process that we're going through now is a result of a Council discussion about a year ago. There is a requirement for boards to do annual reports and work plans. Council was making an attempt to recognize the work of the boards. There was some discussion about the value of boards and commissions. The outcome hopefully will be positive to the overall process. We're looking for more direct feedback from the liaison to the board, and to re-establish the role of the liaison in working with the boards. Some of us did it and some of us didn't. I took it seriously. I'm making suggestions, and I hope they will be taken in that light. There was some discussion about the role of boards in advising Council, and if some boards overstep their bounds, or are no longer necessary. What I attempted to do is try to direct my comments toward the policy agenda aspects, or ordinances the City works with. This is important in continuing the legitimacy of a board's work. The more you can tie the work of the board to City policy, or our policy agenda, the more seriously it is taken by some members of Council. Natural Resources Adviwoard • February 14, 2001 Page 3 of disagreement, but the tone of the discussion is different. Thanks for all of the hard work. Natural Areas Easement Policy Steve Ryder asked for clarification on the route this policy has taken in the process. Shoemaker said that we're acquiring lands within a landscape where there is a lot of history of development. A few places are pristine, but most have easements in place to start with. We're doing this land conservation business in a developing city. Inevitably, we'll be faced with requests for various crossings of land owned by the City. Over the first several years we had a few. Sometimes these things are benign, and sometimes they are not. The Board recommended to Council that an easement policy be drafted and adopted. Council concurred. We worked with the Board on this, and were chugging along for a few months with the idea it would be taken to Council in December or early January. The most recent revision until tonight was October 26. As Bill mentioned, we've been stalled for some time due to a climate of uncertainty with the Fort Collins/Loveland Water District. Discussion • Donovan: Have there been easement requests that came forward that you've had to deal with in the mean time? There has been one that ended up going before Council during this process, it was relative to the sewer line connection on Fossil Creek Wetlands. We have worked at various levels with other easement requests. We're trying to get the policy done. The proposal by the Water District to locate water storage tanks and a pipeline to Ridgewood Hills has been a major source of concern. • Pierce: Are most of the requests in the southern part of town? Certainly that's where our largest landholdings are. We're getting a good idea of what we can expect to see from Fort Collins/Loveland, but we can't predict fiber optics, etc. It's fair to say that staff and the board have been in pretty good agreement about the wording for the proposed policy. I have been cleared to move this along, and am doing everything I can to have it on the Council agenda for March 20. • Murphy: You mentioned this came to a halt in October. Can you comment on what has changed? Yes. It's been very frustrating. We made repeated attempts to find out what was going on. Shortly after the f rst of the year John Fischbach and Mike Ditullio had a meeting. There was a proposal for formal mediation between the City and water districts that we have been involved in. Now, we have a much better sense of where we are miscommunicating, and progress is being made. The senior managers in the organization have been supportive of the process. They're trying their best to get us to reaspnable solutions without giving away the farm. • Knowlton: The I-25 Corridor Plan is on the March 20 agenda. What are the chances of this getting on too? 1 think they're quite good. • Ohlson: It will be good to be on that night. Will this be a resolution or an ordinance? We're headed toward a resolution to begin with. There was discussion ofputting it in ordinance form to make it that much stronger, but there has been no further conversation along those lines. Natural Resources Advisory B 1 February 14, 2001 Page 4 • Ohlson: Historically, it's better to have it in the code. I would like to work with the policy and see how it's working. It's more difficult to change code. Frankly, it's broad enough in terms of what it's trying to cover it would be difficult to translate it into code language. • Shoemaker: Mark Sears has been working on master agreements, modified to fit specific circumstances. Not every easement will be different. The idea is to get what we need, and not be reinventing the wheel all of the time. • Ohlson: As far as process, perhaps we can say that we're comfortable with Tom going out with this draft easement policy. I don't see any major policy shifts. I'm comfortable with the going out to make sure the process is moving along. Would you be comfortable with that direction? • Knowlton: Can these two documents be sent out separately, or should they go together? They should probably go out at the same time. There's plenty of room for your comments. Board members will study the document and come back with final comments next week. Shoemaker will go ahead and send out the draft document. Review Future Agenda Items March 7, 2001: Regional I-25 Plan — Elements of the Plan, Joe Frank April 4, 2001: Regional 1-25 Plan - Final Plan, Joe Frank AQAP Mid -Course Correction Discussion on Prairie Dog Policy TDU Overview Land acquisition update • Kelly Ohlson requested copies of the soapbox article by John Fischbach be included in a future packet. New Business • Shoemaker: Phil Murphy has been representing this board on the I-25 Corridor Plan. There is a focus group on Feb. 21, from 5:30 to 6:30 at the Plaza Inn on Mulberry. Phil is unable to attend. Joe Frank would like a representative from the NRAB, any volunteers? Kelly Ohlson will attend the Focus Group. • Ohlson: There is an Open House on the 1-25 Corridor Plan on Feb. 22. Review of Minutes: January 3, 2001 The minutes of the January 3, 2001 were unanimously approved as written. Committee Reports Natural Areas: Don Rodriguez said the committee met on January 25. There was an update on the Natural Areas Easement Policy. At the time of the meeting the draft policy was consistent with the direction of the board. Also heard on the Provincetown development and proposed easement on Highway 287. This was a fairly contentious discussion. The committee felt staff made the right decision. The decision was not to Natural Resources Advis*Board . February 14, 2001 Page 5 bring this to the full board, but to route utility away from the natural area. We asked Mark to bring it to the full board, and it's on tonight's agenda. We had questions related to actual compensation, potential givings, water quality, and treatment of runoff. We also discussed the Kingfisher Point rehabilitation. The Army Corp of Engineers may eventually have federal funding for Kingfisher Point. The City needs a 35% match to get access to the federal funds for aquatic system restoration. The City can use their purchase of land for the match. They want to recreate an oxbow and divert water from the river through an area that doesn't currently have water. The next meeting of the Natural Areas Committee is Thursday, February 24. Trail Committee: Next meeting - Tuesday, February 20, 2001 at noon. Solid Waste Committee: The March 5th meeting has been cancelled. Education Committee: Tom Shoemaker and Bonnie Pierce will meet. Budget Committee: Needs to be scheduled. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned into a work session at 8:30 p.m. Natural Resources Advisory B t February 14, 2001 Page 2 Discussion • Ohlson: There are some members of the Council who don't like the values reflected by the NRAB. If they looked at our memo's they'd see that 99.9% of our work involves what staff brings to us. We are responding to what staff brings us. Many of us are frustrated. We're in a reactive mode, there is no free -thinking time. • Bertschy: Your point is well taken. In future memo's, such as the work plan, remind us of that. • Donovan: Maybe it makes sense to put that in the first couple of sentences. • Bertschy: That would really help. Sometimes we forget that you're speaking to something we've asked you to. • Shoemaker: Staff and this board have worked very closely in the last 6-8 years to make recommendations to the policy agenda. We work very carefully when making the work plan to go back to policy agenda. • Bertschy: It doesn't hurt to remind us when it's in the policy agenda. • Donovan: Is it appropriate for the board to revise the work plan after Bill's input? • Bertschy: These are just suggestions, if you disagree, that's fine. Comment 1: Administrative Issues, #4 — What does this refer to? • Bertschy: Framework for Environmental Action — I had forgotten, but this does apply specifically to Council direction. Comment 2: City Plan Implementation and Land Use Planning • Ohlson: We didn't prioritize these. We should have mentioned that. • Bertschy: Maybe these comments are moot since these weren't prioritized. • Ohlson: Since we're making changes we could still move "2" to "1". • Bertschy: I would like to see the discrepancy in population increase projections addressed. I'd suggest that we have a study and agree on the projections. It should be mentioned that we're concerned about the projections and the lack of uniformity. Comment 3: Environmental Protection, Health, and Safety • Bertschy: I'd add Horsetooth Reservoir as a water source that needs water quality monitoring. How will the project and upstream activity impact water quality? • Ohlson: We've had concerns about the development, and water quality relating to growth. • Bertschy: As far as #4, we need to remind folks why it's important and why we asked for that monitoring. We need to educate people that it's in the code, we're not trying to be more difficult to development. • Ohlson: We've never had bodies to go out and check for compliance. We need bodies to enforce existing policies and compliance dealing with new development. • Bertschy: On issue #5, it needs to be stated that if in fact we're going to have these policies, we need to have them funded. How is it that we can get all kinds of press and awards, take advantage of the "wonderful work' of a program, and not fund it? • Bertschy: I went to the P&R Board meeting a couple weeks ago and heard Paul Hudnut's report from the Trails Committee meeting. It was a very complimentary report. They're looking forward to working with the NRAB. There will be issues