Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 01/16/1997MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD SPECIAL MEETING 281 CONFERENCE ROOM - 281 N. COLLEGE AVE. JANUARY 16,1997 For Reference: Phil Murphy, NRAB Chair - 491-6303 Gina Janett, Council Liaison 493-4677 Tom Shoemaker, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Phil Murphy, Bill Miller, Linda Kirkpatrick, Phil Friedman, Jan Behunek, Kelly Ohlson, Katy Mason and Ed Secor (after the vote on the Cathy Fromme Parking Lot) Board Members Absent Craig McGee Staff Present Natural Resources Dent: Tom Shoemaker, Sally Maggart, Karen Manci, Sue Kenney; PXk Planning Dent.: Craig Foreman The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Agenda Review Fossil Creek Trail Construction was switched with City Plan Implementation. Guests None Announcements Phil Friedman distributed an editorial about the Poudre River Corridor Act. Fossil Creek Trail Construction at the Cathy Fromme Prairie, Tom Shoemaker Karen Manci, Environmental Planner, distributed a map that portrayed the trail location and the pros and cons on the observation area. She noted that board members had a field trip to the site. Phil Murphy, Chair, said that there was no official vote, but the consensus of the board was to move the parking lot to Area C, with the observation point located up the hill to the west. If the City is not able to purchase the Fossil Creek Estates property, the parking lot might have to go back to Area A. Tom Shoemaker, Natural Resources Director, said that there is an agreement to purchase the site but it has not yet been presented to the boards and Council. Natural Resources Advisory Board January 16, 1997 Page 2 DISCUSSION • Site C has a better sight view for traffic. • Concern expressed about the digging of fossils on the small ridge. • The impact on a small portion of the prairie at Fossil Creeks Estate can be mitigated with native grass; roosting sites for hawks cannot be mitigated. DECISION Katy Mason made the motion to endorse the parking lot and observation area at Area C, according to the map. Bill Miller seconded the motion. After the following comments, the motion passed unanimously (7-0). COMMENTS Kelly Ohlson commented that he appreciated staff tweaking it. He said he wants staff to make sure there are ways to be more sensitive according to guidelines. He said that he would like the stakes redone to make sure the parking lot is not too large. Craig Foreman, Park Planner, said that the parking lot will accommodate around ten cars. He added that he will survey out and design it to do a double onto Shields. The contractor is willing to change the location and size and the Youth Corps is ready to put in the pavers. Sue Kenney, Environmental Education Specialist, displayed preliminary sketches of the observation area. She said that an interpretive team will be meeting for the first time on Saturday to plan the public outreach. Phil Murphy commented that it would be nicer to have the trail paved in materials that allow for handicap access but not for bikes and roller bladers. Ohlson agreed that there is a need to get different kinds of trails, different sizes and in different places. Friedman agreed that trail placement has obvious major impacts on riparian areas by streams. He distributed an article from the Boulder Daily Camera titled "Birds, humans in environmental flap". Katy Mason suggested that it might be a nice idea to have a presentation at a future board meeting on what trails are planned in the future. She asked if the location of this trail was based on resident's concerns. Foreman responded that there was not a lot of space over there. Manci noted that many factors were considered in terms of location. Rick Knight from CS U reviewed the plan and pushed for the trail on the north side. The unique value of the site is open grassland. The Division of Wildlife also agreed to push the trail to the north. Shoemaker said that the overall design is very large for a municipal natural area site and the push is for limited human access. There will be a zone of impact on wildlife but the majority of the area has no human impact. Bill Miller recommended educating the community on the appropriateness of trail placement and the human impact on resources. Phil Friedman recommended an open house to explain the Natural Resources Advisory Board January 16, 1997 Page 3 emerging view of how people are impacting recreation areas. City Plan Implementation, Code Team Tom Vosburg, Policy Analyst, distributed an annotated table of contents for the City Plan Land Use Code. HIGHLIGHTS • Article 1: nonconforming uses grandfathers existing legal stuff. • Article 2: new development review process that is a significant change from the existing administrative process. Type 1 requires Planning & Zoning Board approval and is more administrative and Type 2 is more specific. • Article 3: general development standards and alternative compliance section. Landscaping is more objective and proscriptive and the Planning & Zoning Board is empowered to make judgement about alternative compliance. • Connectivity ensured for pedestrian and bike circulation. • Solar orientation and shading is consolidated from the LDGS. • General setback standards interacts with Article 14. • Standards govern spillover light. • Boilerplate engineering standards. • Offsite public access improvements on page 30. • Air and water quality standards are rolled over from the LDGS. • Noise and vibration, hazardous materials, heat and glare are previous LDGS material restated. • Residential building standards refer to single and multifamily. • Mixed use and commercial building standards relate to commercial buildings smaller than a big box. • Large retail establishment are existing big box design standards. • Convenient shopping center design guidelines are neighborhood shopping guidelines reworked. • Transportation and circulation relate to the transit system. • Street pattern and connectivity standards take a more objective direction. Gated developments are prohibited. • Article 4 deals with the new city plan zoning districts. Rob Wilkinson, Environmental Planner, explained that the new code and regulations apply within the city limits, not the urban growth area of the county. He cited all the natural areas presently owned by the city and the few isolated pieces within the city that are not protected. Wilkinson said that although acquisition goals have been met within the city limits, there is still the need for restoration of these areas. Kelly Ohlson said that the board is just not concerned with natural areas protection. There is the need to do better on creeks, stormwater pretreatment, etc. 1t " Natural Resources Advisory Board January 16, 1997 Page 5 language. Line 26, Section d: Transition areas seems wide open; too weak and vague. Look at how to address legal issues. • Page 38: Look at language on buffer areas and how the range is determined. The Director would determine. Add "could be greater if special circumstances exist". • Page 39: Why no mention about floodplain? The Natural Resources Board supported prohibiting development in the floodplain and recommended that if one built in the floodplain, the City would take no special measures. There are strong economic and environmental implications. • Page 40: Add disclosure to buyer and seller regarding wildlife conflicts. Strike out "of similar nature" and eliminate the wording "problem" wildlife. • Page 40: Need storrawater requirement included. Add "best management practices". • Page 42: Do not use the Army Corps of Engineers in Section b. They are concerned about roads and bridges and are using the wrong criteria. Use Fish and Wildlife standards for wetlands. Add "specific to the west". • Page 43: Rip Rap on line 6 changed from original version. There may be a situation where that is the only alternative possible. Make sure exceptions are exceptions and not "norm". • Page 43: Control wanted over when access to natural areas is allowed on line 16, item 8. Management plans are developed for each site. Will look at language. . • Page 44: Check if definition of drip zone is "diameter" or "radius". • Page 45: Big loophole in modifications of standard. This should be a Planning & Zoning Board decision; not director empowered. Needs to be public process. • Page 45: Same issue regarding the Army Corps on Engineers in Section g . They are historically concerned with "fill". This is to ensure that they comply with federal regulations as well as ours. • Page 46: Add "right to know". • Page 46: Pretreatment criteria do not exist. • Page 47: Is there anything regarding reflective glare and heat off of windows? There is specific prohibition in building design standards. • Page 56: Strike "grazing" and do crop agriculture. Clarify it is not to be allowed in riparian transition area.. • Page 76: Concerned about allowing bars, taverns and nightclubs along the river. • Supreme Court ruled against prohibiting the installation of a satellite dish. Other Business Phil Friedman distributed a letter from Tim Johnson regarding Poudre River Land Use Patterns. This will be discussed at the next meeting. A report on floodplains will also be put on the agenda. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Natural Resources Advisory Board January 16, 1997 Page 4 Katy Mason asked how current is the inventory within the city limits. Wilkinson said that the last inventory was done in 1992 but can be revised. He will check to see if Council would have to approve the revision. Bill Miller noted that the Larimer County Environmental Advisory Board has an interest in this planning process and it would be advantageous to have a sharing of standards. Tom Shoemaker said that it is important to stress that the code is part of the City Plan implementation and Intergovernmental Agreements are the other part. The City code will apply within the UGA. COMMENTS ON ARTICLE 3 • Page 5: Does not apply to natural area open space. Add comment to exempt natural areas. • Paragraph 3: Unclear regarding native vegetation. • Page 5, Paragraph 3: Need to cross link landscape standards for developments with open space for recreation. • Page 8: Revise language to include topsoil replacement or augmentation. • Page 9: Sprinkler system requirement could be an issue for affordable housing. Can be as inefficient as hand watering. • Page 10: Make sure this is not asking people to take out every dead tree. That could impact the ecosystem. The key is if it is a threat to public safety and welfare. • Page 12: Section e. is not specific on the topsoil issue. • Page 11: Keep in the "replacement of significant trees". • Page 15, Section b: The location of bicycle parking facilities is vague. • Pages 17 & 18: Is there a waiver for solar access? It is sometimes waived, not always. The majority do meet the guideline. Exempting high density districts and more intense urban development could be a conflict with shadowing and shading. • Page 22: Vague and weak (top of page). Tighten to eliminate spillover. • Page 34: Flood mentioned in the second line could open the door for all kinds of controls in the floodplain. It would be a dangerous thing to take engineering precautions. Exclude "flood". The buyer should be made aware of geologic hazards with adequate land surveys. Split out "geologic" and 'other". Design to minimize threat to humans. • Page 35: Section cl should specify the Natural Resource Department Director. The CPES Director is specifically listed in the charter and can delegate to the Natural Resource Director. The code always refers to somebody in the charter. In practice,it would be done by Natural Resources' staff. • Page 35: Last sentence of Section b should be "at least or exceed" instead of roughly proportional to loss. No formula for proportionality. • Page 37: Add eradication "by City approved methods" to Line 22. • Page 37: In Section b, can the developer write the report or hire a professional? Have a neutral consultant approved by the city and paid by the developer. The City should be able to have it done and charge the developer. The County has language that enables them to do that. Red flag this as a big one. • Page 38: Insert wildlife species 'certified by local"... on line 6. Refer to page 37