Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 12/02/1992MINUTES • CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE AVE. - CONFERENCE ROOM DECEMBER 2r 1992 For Reference: Will Smith, NRAB Chair Vacant, Council liaison Tom Shoemaker, Staff liaison - 221-0425 - 221-6263 Board Members Present Will Smith, Hal Swope, Deni LaRue, Craig McGee, Terri Knudsen, Bill Miller, Tim Johnson, Phil Friedman Board Members Absent (unexcused) Steve Erthal Staff Present Julie Bothwell, Edith Felchle, Gary Diede, Mark Sears Guest Present Gary Buffington, State Parks, Lee Ann Loupe, Forest Service, John Bartholow, interested citizen A mroval of Minutes It was moved, seconded, and unanimously approved that the Minutes of the November 4, 1992 NRAB meeting be accepted as written with the following changes: Page five, paragraph eight should read, "Miller stated that objectives are doable and goals are nice, but hard to reach. He said that it is a good start." Page nine, paragraph ten, sentence two should read, "But given the current performance, we believe additional measures are needed to meet the intent of the Fort collins Solar Orientation Ordinance." It was discussed and decided that Agenda item 5d, Recommendation on Air Quality Strategic Plan, be tabled until a later date. Old Business New Information From Colorado State Parks on Water Treatment Plant 1 (WTP1) Gary Buffington from State Parks was present to give an update on Water Treatment Plant 1. Leigh Ann Loupe, US Forest Service was also present to answer questions. Buffington stated that a few years ago the Division of Parks was interested in the area for recreation, but there were a few "stumbling blocks" that could not be overcome to get access in the area. He said that one of the things was safe access into the WTP off of the highway. State Parks contracted with the Highway Department two years ago and they are finalizing the State Highway Design Plan. Buffington presented the Board a copy of the preliminary design. The cost of the plan was projected to be approximately $80,000 four years ago and now it is projected to be $340,000. Two different access points were looked at -- one would come off of the hill on the west side of the road, and the other would to go into the river with some kind of fill option. The Highway Department and State Parks thought the hill access would be the best. It would consist of taking some of the mountain out and making a highway right-of-way through there. It would do a number of things for the highway and make it safer along with providing safe access into the WTP1. The hill option would also give the landowner there better access to his property. Buffington stated that there were some problems with the river fill option. Buffington stated that there are a number of funds available to pay for this project: ISTEA enhancement funds, US Forest Service, Division of Wildlife, and Larimer County. He stated that, from his point of view, though funding will not be available until 1994. He said in terms of design, surveying is being done at the present by the Highway Department and they will have construction documents ready to bid in April of 1993. Johnson asked if funding would be available for scenic byways. Loupe stated that a committee is being formed to develop a management plan for the scenic byway. Buffington stated that State Parks is interested in managing the area depending on funding. Buffington stated that the ISTEA monies and the byway plan are part of the enhancement program grant. It could be done in 1994. The applications are due December 16, 1992, and they did not feel that they could do anything on paper without the City wanting to do it. Buffington stated that there is $10 million available in ISTEA funds. Last year there were 20 projects in Colorado requested, 16 of those were funded. He said there are about 6 guidelines for qualifying for this grant money. The WTP1 access would meet 2 out of the 6: safe highway access and opening an access to a recreation along a byway. Johnson stated that when the NRAB did tours of the WTP1, they took Transfort because of limited parking. He asked if Transfort or something similar will play a role in getting people to the site and if so could it also be included in the ISTEA funding. Buffington answered that he has not really studied the ISTEA fund that closely to know. Smith asked what expectation Buffington and Loupe had of the Board. Buffington said that he really had no expectation of the Board he was just present to keep the Board informed of what is going on. Loupe said that she has been working on this project for five years and would really like to see the access become reality and that she was present to see where the Board stood on the project at the present. Friedman asked if there is some over arching coordination. He stated that he was concerned because it is a large capital outlay and it would be terrible if the project got funded and then there is no money to actually open it. He said it is important to make sure that as funds are requested, and when they become available, that path A leads to Path B and C so in the future it is a working park. Buffington agreed that it needs to be a "packaged deal" not just the access. The players who are involved. Some kind of a Memorandum of Understanding indicating what each department will do. Smith stated that the Board is trying to come up with a specific proposal of turning WTP1 into a recreation park and get it into the City's 2 9 workplan. Smith thanked Buffington and Loupe for coming. The Board appreciated the information, it helped for when the Board presents Council with their documentation. Alternatives for Improvement of Shields Street between Prospect and Laurel Mark Sears and Gary Diede, Engineering Department, were present to talk about the status of the alternatives for Shields Street. Diede stated that they take projects such as this to City boards when there is not a consensus on the project. In this case, the property owners that will be affected do not agree with the Staff recommendation. Therefore, they have gone back through other Boards and Commissions to give Council a flavor of what is preferred. Diede said they are planning to present it to Council January 5, 1993. The Board should have their recommendations in by the end of December. Sears stated that the scope of the project starts at Birch on the north end and Laurel on the northeast corner and will go south to Prospect. It will be built in 1994. There are approximately 26 homes in the area; 13 are rentals and 13 are owner -occupied. Presently Shields Street between Prospect and Laurel carries over 26,000 vehicles, 1,000 bicycles, and 200 pedestrians each day. Sears said the problem that is trying to be addressed is that there are no sidewalks in many places and even where there are sidewalks, they are only 30 inches wide and you have pedestrians and bicyclists both using them. He stated that when you combine that number of bicyclists, and pedestrians with the 26,000 vehicles in that short of a stretch with the limited amount of facilities, it gets congested. The Choices 95 scope of work for the project would place bicyclist and pedestrians on a 10' wide bi-directional sidewalk on each side of the street. It would also add a right turn lane at Laurel and a right turn lane at Elizabeth. There would also be a right turn lane added at Prospect. The three different alternatives that they have proposed for providing the bicyclist/pedestrian improvement would all include the right turn lanes. What would be different is how the bicycle/pedestrian lane be addressed. Sears explained the three design alternatives: Alternative One -- According to the original scope of the project it can be built for $23,000 under budget. Staff recommends that a 3 ft. wide splash strip be added at an additional cost of $115,000; it would then be $92,000 over budget. A splash strip would primarily provide a buffer between the street and the sidewalk. Alternative one is the alternative desired by the neighborhood. Some of the pros of alternative one are: it provides bicycle and pedestrian facilities for CSU destined traffic, provides facilities on both sides of the street, would have the least impact on surrounding businesses and residents, and would save 26 trees. Some of the cons of alternative one are: sidewalk bike facilities are 9 not consistent with city jikeway standards, shared sidewalk facilities are dangerous as they mix various functions and travel speeds in one area, sidewalk bikeways do not safely interact with auto traffic at intersections, and it would remove 8 trees. Alternative Two -- This can be built for $132,000 over budget. The alternative two design was taken from the University of Colorado in Boulder. A splash strip would be built, along with off-street bi- directional bicycle lanes, and a sidewalk on the east side of Shields and a sidewalk with a splash strip on the west side. Left turns onto or off of Shields could not be made except at signalized intersections. Alternative two has not received any positive reaction from anyone; there is too much conflict. Some of the pros of alternative two are: it provides bicycle and pedestrian facilities for CSU traffic, has the least impact to residents and business on the west side, and saves 17 trees. Some of the cons of alternative two are: the sidewalk bike facilities do not serve the needs of commuter cyclists, the oversized bike and pedestrian facilities on the east side focus primarily on CSU users, not on other commuters, restricted left turns may make vehicle access on and off side streets east of Shields more difficult, detached sidewalks and bike paths do not safely interact with auto traffic at intersections, and there is a high potential for bike/bike, bike/pedestrian, auto/bike, and auto/auto accidents. Alternative Three -- It can be built for $438,000 over budget. It would widen the street approximately 5' on each side to add a 6' bike lane. A 3' splash strip would be constructed with a 6' sidewalk on the west side and a 3' splash strip and 8' sidewalk on the east side. A bike lane would be on the street with bicyclists riding with the traffic and pedestrians would be on the sidewalk. The sidewalk on the east side is wider because there are more pedestrians on the east side. The neighborhood feels that by widening the street there would be more of an impact to their front yards and it would seem less like a residential area. Some of the pros for alternative three are: on -street bike lanes and separated sidewalks are consistent with the City's bikeway standards, bicycle and pedestrian facilities are provided for CSU users as well as the community's commuter cyclists, on -street bike lanes clarify the proper location for bicycles, it eliminates the conflict with pedestrians, and it provides for safe and efficient interaction with other transportation modes. Some of the cons for alternative three are: it has the most impact to the adjacent properties, requires acquisition of the most right-of-way, and removes 34 trees. Sears stated that the Air Quality Task Force, the Transportation Board, Choice City Cyclists, and the CSU Transportation Committee all recommend Alternative three. Friedman stated that he was concerned that, even though CSU likes the project, they do not want to put any money into it. He feels that it belies the truth when CSU talks about transportation planning on campus, 4 but does not want to he p fund remedies for a problem that is in large part created by CSU, not by the community at large. Sears stated that CSU will not be charging the City for the right-of-way, and they have also maintained the sidewalks that are built on their property. Sears stated that Staff is looking at realigning North Drive and Plum Street to eliminate the off -set of the intersections. The cost for this would be $50,000. Miller asked where the $50,000 would come from. Diede answered that CSU said that they would help with the funding, but would not be able to provide the total. Diede stated that relative to the landscaping concerns, what is destroyed will be replaced, and if there was none to begin with, some kind of landscaping will be put in. Smith stated that the Board will not be meeting before the January 5 Council meeting and recommended that one of the subcommittees, with the help of Staff, draft a letter. The Board went around the table to hear comments and concerns. Miller stated that he liked alternative three; it makes the most sense to him even though it is over the budget. Knudsen liked three because she felt it is the best solution. She expressed that she really liked the separation of pedestrians from bicyclists. McGee also liked three because of the constant bicyclist and pedestrian problems that occur. Johnson stated that he liked three and that it is definitely a big improvement over anything that exists. LaRue stated that she felt for the neighborhood, but also agreed that alternative three is the better choice. Although Swope felt that it was a stretch to bring this project under the perview of the Board (he felt that it pertained to transportation) he agreed that alternative three was the best choice. Friedman stated that he did not really like any of the alternatives, but feels that three is the best alternative. He stated that he feels that there needs to be some type of a cooperative arrangement from CSU because they stand to be the biggest beneficiary from the project. fie also feels that there needs to be further investigation with alternative three with some of the concerns that the neighborhood has. From a natural areas standpoint he does not like three because of the removal of 34 trees. Smith liked three also. He proposed that six months after the project is completed, staff should go back and review what the non -motorized counts go to and use that as an example of what occurs when appropriate facilities are provided. Miller asked what the tort liability is to the City if the Mini Mart on Elizabeth gets displaced due to the right turn lane. Diede answered that the City would have to pay the value of the property. 3 Johnson moved and M��ee seconded that the Transportation Committees draft a letter with the Board's comments. It was unanimously approved. LaRue asked, in regard to Swope's concern, if the Board was looking at this issue because of the natural resources or because staff was looking for Board input. Smith answered that he asked that Sears come before the Board. He stated that part of this is based on the review of the Prospect Streetscape. During that review one question that came up was why was there such high considerations for Prospect Streetscape relative to the level of considerations for Shields Street. Shields offers one of the best opportunities to complete a portion of a nonmotorized corridor that would connect north and south on the west side of the city. Swope stated tht he was concerned because natural areas covers such a huge area and the Board already has so much on their agenda. He considered something like this has a traffic safety/transportation issue. Smith stated that staff was uncertain which direction they wanted to go with this. The more endorsements that can be provided the more likely it is going to happen. LaRue wanted to know why a transportation issue was being considered a part of natural resources. Smith stated that he believed that the more long-term the Board can do for alternative modes the more land can be preserved. He is looking at alternative modes with respect to land use issues. Recommendation on Northeast Area Transportation (NEATS) At the November 4 NRAB meeting, Smith presented the Board a draft letter of the Board's opinion on NEATS. McGee moved and Johnson seconded to approve the letter is concept and have further discussion afterwards. Friedman suggested taking out sentence 6 in paragraph 2. Johnson stated that it is not clear how this plan meets the Air Quality Strategic Plan. It was decided that in paragraph two, line three should read as follows: "Though the impacts of this alternative on the forthcoming Air Quality Strategic Plan are not clear. " After discussion it was decided to change paragraph two, line seven to read, "The community must also pay attention to the question of which precedes; infrastructure improvements generating developments or local developments requiring infrastructure support." The letter was unanimously approved. Bothwell will make the changes and transmit it to the Transportation Division. Recommendation on Solar Orientation Report At the November 4 NRAB meeting, Smith presented a draft letter of the Board's concern regarding the Solar Orientation Ordinance. The Board made some changes and asked the Planning Department to review the letter. Tom Peterson, Planning Director, reviewed the letter and felt that although the content was correct, the choice of wording was a little too harsh. The letter seemed to alienate the Planning and Zoning Board, and actually both Boards are in agreement about the concern over how the ordinance is being executed. He requested that the Board take another look at the letter and 2 reword it. Johnson moved and Swope seconded to rescind the previous motion sending the letter. It was unanimously approved. Smith stated that the Planning and Zoning Board is a little concerned, but felt that their hands were tied in some respects. Because of the state at which several of the PUDs were brought to them, they felt that they could not legally make a recommendation that would change the conditions on the developer. It was discussed and decided that the third paragraph be rewritten to read as follows: "The recommendations of City staff which would have had the developments meet the intent of the ordinance were reasonable. In the future the NRAB hopes that the P&Z board will ask for actions that would mitigate noncompliance in PUDs such as (though not limited to) solar house orientation even though lot orientation does not conform." There were some other minor changes. Johnson moved and it was seconded that the letter be sent with the changes. Committee Reports (unscheduled) Friedman stated that the Education Committee met to look at next year's environmental action awards. They also planned when the press release, nomination form, and an article in the City News would all be done. The awards will be presented at Council's April 20 worksession. Felchle stated that the nominations will be reviewed at the March worksession. It was discussed and decided that a letter be presented to Council to support their goal of naming a natural area in Councilmember Fromme's honor. It will be discussed further at the January 6 NRAB meeting. Announcements LaRue asked if a list had been put together of the people who attended the September 16 Water Treatment Plant 1 tour. Bothwell will check. LaRue stated that KCSU is going to start doing a program with the air quality part of the Natural Resources Division. Linda Devocelle, Environmental Education Specialist will put together a 60 second report reflecting the previous week's air quality readings. The report will be announced five times a day, one day a week. Felchle stated that at the January 6 meeting, the Board will need to approve their 1992 annual report. A copy will be included in the January 6 packets. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. 7