Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 10/07/1992CITY NATURAL RE MINUTES • OF FORT COLLINS OURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE AVE. - CONFERENCE ROOM OCTOBER 7, 1992 For Reference: Will Smith, NRAB Chair - 221-0425 Cathy Fromme, Council liaison - 223-9360 Tom Shoemaker, Staff liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Will Smith, Hal Swope, Deni LaRue, Steve Erthal, Bill Miller, Phil Friedman, Tim Johnson, Craig McGee Board Members Absent (excused) Terri Knudsen Staff Present Tom Shoemaker, Edith Felchle, Rick Ensdorff, Warren Jones, Fire Marshall, Poudre Fire Authority Guests Present Lester Litton and Earl Wilkinson, Northeast Area Transportation Study minutes It was moved, seconded, and unanimously approved that the Minutes of the August 19, 1992 NRAB special meeting be accepted as written with the amendment of adding discussion regarding two stroke engines and their effect on air quality. Bothwell was asked to review the tape and revise the section of minutes in which Woodruff described the Los Angeles' area campaign to control lawn mowers and chainsaws, which have much greater air pollution per gallon of fuel used than cars. It was moved, seconded, and unanimously approved that the Minutes of the September 12, 1992 NRAB meeting be accepted with the following amendments: (1) Erthal stated that he had mentioned that one of his biggest complaints regarding the powerline issue was that the City should bury the lines when they do future improvements on properties, as opposed to putting in new powerlines. (2) Page 2, paragraph 5 should read, "Miller stated that it saves money for right now, and also the line across the reservoir is aesthetically less desirable at this time because it puts the line behind people. (3) Page 4, paragraph 3, sentence 3, "interesting" should be interested. Old Business Moratorium on Shake Shingles Warren Jones was present to discuss Poudre Fire Authority's (PFA) point of view on cedar shake shingles. Jones stated that there have been many fires over the last 200 years and the single largest contributing cause has been the combustible roofing material. Approximately ten years ago, PFA made an effort to try and get combustible roofing out of the building code and the wood shake shingle and 1 cedar industry opposed i They tried again in 1985 .nd still did not get very far. Jones said that PFA would support any efforts to lessen the risk; however, based on his own personal experience it is a "tough one to crack." He stated that PFA works within a strategic planning process which runs every seven years, and at the present they are at the beginning of this process. In this process they try to identify major new code issues: There are several ways that the shingle issue could be approached: 1) prohibition of wood roofing materials; (2) fire ordinances that allow a set percentage; 3) prohibit wood roofing requirements in covenants so people can choose to put them on their houses, but are not required to. Jones said that the discussion will need to be presented to the PFA Board. Erthal showed an example of an alternative shingle. It is more costly, but the installation is cheaper and there is a lot less waste. There is also a life span of 50 years whereas a wood shake shingle only has a 10 year life. There are also some insurance companies that give reduced rates for noncombustible wood roofs. Erthal also had brochures of other alternative shingles. Erthal stated that in his research he was not successful in getting cooperation from the Forestry Department at Colorado State University or the Forest Service in Montana. He did do some independent research and found out that most of the wood is coming from Oregon, Washington, and northern California. Cedar trees are very slow -growing and do not readily return to an area after it is logged. They use old growth trees because they are less prone to rotting. LaRue commented that she agreed with Jones that a nice place to start is to remove the covenant restrictions that people have to have wood shakes. Erthal stated that he made the same comment at the September meeting. He added that what drove this topic is that there are subdivisions in Fort Collins with covenants in Fort Collins that require cedar shake shingles and nothing else can be used. He stated that the Board said it wanted to take a proactive stance and this is one place to do it. If an all-out ban on cedar shakes is not possible he feels that there could be compromises. Erthal would like to push for an all out ban. Seattle has already taken a proactive stand for both the fire reasons and the ecological reasons. Miller said he would be in favor of going for the building codes to ban the use of natural wood products on a roof at not only new construction, but also to stipulate that the existing shake roofs have to be replaced. Johnson stated that he thought some good issues were raised and to move forward on this, it would be good to pick out a few of the cities that have completely banned the wood shakes and get their resolutions. It would also be good to get some more information on the old growth forests that are being affected. He would like to have this issue worked into the Board's 1993 workplan. Smith asked about the process for making this happen as an item for Staff to work on. Miller asked if the Board had enough of a "handle" on the issue to go ahead and get some more information from the other cities and then they PA could present a lette to Council, Planning and/ athe PFA Board, f recommending a code change. Jones stated, that an all-out ban requires an amendment to the Building Code for new construction. An all-out ban plus a retroactive requirement to replace a roof with noncombustible materials would require a special ordinance, in addition to a Building Code change. Shoemaker stated that in terms of looking at the workload and established priorities, the Board and Staff are very busy and cannot accept anymore work items. Jones stated that everytime they have done their strategic planning there has been a component that was related to the shingles in relationship to the codes and standards for fire prevention. He said that if the Board was willing to give it some time they could see what transpires through the strategic planning process. Miller asked if it would be of any value to present the issue to Council, but not be insistent, that an action be taken within the next year or so. The Board would then come back in a year or so with a broader agenda on it. Shoemaker stated that the 1993 workplan would be the place to revaluate it in terms of other things and start thinking about what actions the Board would like to take. Erthal stated that there are some Homeowner's Associations, even though they know the alternatives, that will not remove the covenants. He would like to see something presented to Council to raise the issue to put pressures on the covenants and architectural review boards. LaRue asked that if they start with the covenants could it be directed to the Planning Department and skip the Board's part for the time being. Shoemaker stated that it does not have to be the Natural Resources Division that implements it, but communication needs to be done with Council. Council needs to say, "We are going to do this." He stated that the Planning Department has a full schedule also. Johnson stated that possibly the Board would not have to lean so much on Staff and could gather the critical information and then make their recommendation. Smith stated that there are alternatives that can be done that would be minimal work for staff. The Board can develop a lot of the issue itself. He recommended looking at a time frame, drafting a letter, bringing the issue to Council as to what the alternatives are, and potentially asking for consideration of this in detail in the LDGS or within PFA planning. Shoemaker stated that this process would take a significant amount of public involvement. It is not the Board's role to do the whole process. So, the Board might talk about an "issue paper" that raises the issues and explores some alternatives. Jones stated that he would be glad to submit a cover letter on such a paper and present it to the PFA Board. Miller asked if there would be some kind of environmental affair in the spring? Shoemaker answered that there will be several things going on during Earth Week, the Environmental Fair is in the fall, and there is the Environment Issues, Impacts and Innovations Series throughout the year. 3 Smith asked Erthal he was happy with what thr--Board had come up with. Erthal responded no, that he would like to see more action, because the timber industry is not being stopped if the Board does not move ahead; but, he understands the restrictions of time involved. Erthal would like to see a letter presented to Council to at least get them interested in the issue. Smith asked Erthal, with the help of other Boardmembers, to identify components that would be included in drafting a letter that would be presented to Council. Jones reported that the Hazardous Materials Management Plan that the Board considered two years ago was adopted by Council last year, and is working. Every week a class is available for different industries. The format that is being used locally has a chance of being adopted statewide. He stated that Ron Gonzales, Hazardous Materials Specialist, could come to a meeting to update the Board on what people have done in the past, and what they have done to change, since the plan was adopted. New Business Rick Ensdorff, Director, Transportation Division, presented NEATS. He stated that Council asked for the NRAB's recommendation. The study will be presented to Council December 15, so he would like to receive all recommendations and comments by December 1. A citizen committee was formed of a variety of people to conduct the study, including business people, neighbors, and citizens at large. They looked at population projections for the area and additional trips that would be generated in the future. Ensdorff stated that it was an eight - month process, that included a lot of citizen involvement, and three open houses. Ensdorff stated that the emphasis was not just a one-dimensional approach to transportation planning, but to look at transportation and all its components. He stated that there is a proposed bikeway system that includes a couple of things that are different, but is consistent with what is done in the rest of the City. New collectors and arterials will have bike lanes. When the opportunity arises they will also work with development to put bikeways in drainage areas or greenbelts and to connect them. In addition, the committee felt strongly about using ditches and canals for bikeways. There has been concern though with liability in using these, but other Cities have overcome that concern; these areas can provide unique bikeways and connections. In the bikeway, sidewalk/pedestrian, and transit plans there are no major differences from existing City policies. If the City builds a street they put a sidewalk on it. If it is an arterial street, it is a larger sidewalk and separated from the roadway, and if it is a collector street then it is separated and is 5 feet wide. The committee also worked on a street plan. Ensdorff presented the Board with a diagram of the street plan. The diagram showed major street facilities, and minor arterials which basically are collector streets or a combination. The intent was not to just build the streets, but build them as development occurs. 4 Smith asked if a* the segments within that *ea are now within the UGA. Ensdorff replied that there is a small section just outside the UGA, and there are various combinations of City and County jurisdiction. Ensdorff stated that the County has been involved with the process. The Commissioners have been briefed twice and they are most concerned with the bypass. Johnson said that he liked seeing the bike map because he has ridden many times on his bike in that area and has had his hair "stand on end" a few times; so he really likes what is projected for the future. Johnson asked in regard to the street map, has any thought been given to extending County Road Nine down to Prospect. If County Road Nine is carried north/south as opposed to Timberline, it would not have to cross over some natural areas, whereas with Timberline you would have to. Ensdorff replied that Timberline was the focus of the committee based on the fact that it is a "City Choices 95" project that the City is moving ahead with the connection coming from Prospect to make the alignment. The committee does have some direction to Council to make sure that there is enough funding to get it completed. Ensdorff stated that the connection to Timberline is very important. The north/south connection of Timberline, has been planned for quite awhile to be a major facility to take traffic on the east side of town and take some pressure off of College Avenue. Erthal asked what thought has been given to reducing congestion on College Avenue. Ensdorff stated that the study deals with North College and one of the top issues is an access control plan; where the curbcuts and the traffic signals are going to be. So in that particular area there are steps to try and better control and manage traffic. The bigger issue of providing alternatives that do not require everybody to use College Avenue comes into play with Timberline as an alternative and improvements on Lemay. The whole study included bike, automobile, and transit elements. The transit plan basically identified what the City has already scheduled to do with an additional recommendation to work with the County, as Council has also suggested. The biggest issue was construction of a by-pass. The committee looked at a lot of alternatives, and although they decided against building an interstate type of expressway, they didn't come to consensus on the need for a by-pass. A variety of alignments were examined for their impact on truck traffic, existing development, and the environment, and then whittled down to two options. A nine -member majority of the group voted for alternative three, and a minority of four members voted for alternative one. Alternative one is estimated to cost $10.4 million. It would improve the existing route along Riverside by widening the intersections at Mulberry and at College ($7 million) and also realign Lemay Street ($3 million). It assumes that improvements will give 10 more years of service to the present alignment; a key component of the recommendation is to start the planning now to construct a bypass north of Douglas Road within the next 10 years. 5 Miller asked if the." pass was built north of DL.glas Road how would it connect with Highway 287. Ensdorff replied that it was not determined. The committee looked at that and it is a difficult area; there are a lot of lakes, and large residential lots that fill in a lot of the area. The realignment of Lemay is included in both recommendations. It would move Lemay 1,000 feet to the east, to avoid impacting the neighborhoods of Alta Vista and Buckingham, and construct an overpass over the railroad tracks. Ensdorff stated that if truck traffic were somehow to be reduced, improvements to the transportation system would not be needed as soon; trucks require more signal time to get through intersections, reducing street capacity. They found that 1,000 trucks a day use the route; 80% of them are moving through while 20% have business in town. Alternative three is estimated to cost $14.6 million. It assumes there are not enough trucks and traffic to justify building a by-pass; what is needed is just a downtown by-pass accomplished by realigning Lemay and allowing only limited access onto it. The proposal has not pinned down the west terminus on north College yet, but it would be in the area south of Conifer Street. Alternative three has a 20 year life span for re-routing Highway 14 traffic. Ensdorff commented that the majority maintains that we should do a better job of looking ahead and recommends working with the County to retain land along Douglas Road now for a future by-pass. He showed an artist's rendering of alternative three with noise abatement structures and landscaped medians. Smith asked if East Vine would become the bypass for most of the truck traffic. Ensdorff stated that it would stay on Mulberry, Vine is not considered an alternative. Vine is an arterial so it would be improved and have connections. Ensdorff added that in analyzing the traffic on Mulberry, Mulberry can handle the future traffic with some minor changes. Johnson asked what are the sources for funding. Ensdorff explained there is very little money to cover either of the options and it will take a lot of effort by the City and County to obtain funding from the State. The majority vote thinks that alternative three can be completed in about seven years, and the minority thinks that alternative one would take about ten years to complete. Ensdorff stated that there might be some overlap between the designs. He added that the costs of purchasing right-of-way for alternative one makes costs climb. Without the additional land, however, expanding the intersections is impossible. Johnson stated that the NRAB's Transportation Committee should gather comments and draft a letter for the Board's review at the November 4 meeting. Smith recommended going around the table to hear Boardmember's comments. Swope recommended that the alternative chosen be called something other than alternative three because it is a little confusing. 0 McGee stated thdWe likes the proposed by -As and what is in the ti master plan; bringing the policy plan into reality. LaRue stated that she liked the future recommendations on the bike lanes. She also likes alternative three. Erthal stated that he liked the overall plan. He would like to see more attention to Lemay to get at what is happening north of town. He feels you can not separate north and south of town when you have a population base north Fort Collins traveling south to go shopping and doing errands. He likes alternative three for the bypass and the cost. Miller agreed with Erthal regarding alternative three. He is also in favor of pursuing the utilization of existing canal right of ways. Friedman liked alternative three also. He agreed with Miller as far as using existing canal right-of-ways or other right-of-ways for bike paths that would serve to get bicycles off of a "sharing situation" with cars. As far as the plan goes, that area of town has been neglected and this is an excellent plan. Johnson stated that building in the northeast area, various kinds of growth, is the "driver" for the plan. Keeping that in mind, as the area is developed the Board should maybe ask Council to have the development of the area pay for much of the infrastructure that is going into the area. It would be a model area to begin to put that in practice. Friedman agreed with Johnson that if you put something there growth will follow. Smith stated that he agreed with the Board and that the integration with this in terms of how development occurs, how the natural areas will be affected is very important. Old Business (oont'd) Review of Solar Orientation Ordinance In their mailout the Board received a copy of the Solar Orientation Ordinance along with a letter from Jan Meisel, Planning Department. Smith stated that he questions what good the Solar Orientation Ordinance has done at this point in time. There are some mitigating effects. Many of the PUD's or developments that have taken place were on the books and the ordinance came a little late. But, where the Planning and Zoning Board had the opportunity to reduce those effects by requiring secondary measures, they did not do so, and in effect even with the ordinance we were below the previous city average. Smith said he was a little concerned, he hopes that the low compliance is more due to the fact that these things were well under way and very difficult to change and that we will do much better. If we do not do much better we should start to look at the secondary requirements. The other thing is that a great "hue and cry" was made when the ordinance was adopted regarding the cost, and that the effective cost of implementing the ordinance is downplayed in the whole discussion. Smith asked what the Board's thoughts were. 7 Erthal asked which y ,these projects came to Pl._ ning after the ordinance took effect. There is no way to rate the ordinance until you see what has come before Planning and Zoning after the ordinance. LaRue stated that she is interested in knowing if there is a developer that always meets the requirements and one who always does not. If there is someone who always falls below City's expectations, then that person might need further education. Swope stated that the key to strengthing the ordinance is to tighten the restrictions for granting variances. Johnson stated that the Board should submit a letter expressing disappointment in the results so far and interest in following the next audit to see if there are some changes. Friedman stated that when the ordinance was first presented to Council for adoption there was some discussion of what the final percentage would be. The original percentage of 75% got knocked to 55% and then the final was 65%. It is not known how many of these projects actually were planned after the ordinance went into effect. But, this report gives pause because 75% was desired and a compromise was reached at 65%. Through the variance procedure results are down to 52%, which is not much more than what was occurring automatically without the ordinance being in effect. He stated that it seems there was much to do about nothing and this did not accomplish anything. Smith stated that he will draft a letter. He will ask Joe Frank or Jan Meisel from Planning Department what their comments are. Water Treatment Plant /1 Smith stated that the Board did an extremely good job and he has heard good responses from a lot of people. So now the Board needs to figure out the next plan of action. Miller stated that there is a lot of interest, most people are wondering how the process is going to happen from here on, and unfortunately the Board is not in a position to tell them, at present. Miller stated that more concerns came up at the September 16 meeting in that a representative from Greeley raised the concern that their intake structure is just downstream from the Fort Collins facility and any construction work that takes place in the river could cause a sedimentation problem. Johnson stated that there is a slide show that LaRue put together from the tours. Miller and Johnson put together a poster display that shows some of the area for the public to view. Shoemaker stated that overall his perception is that the Board is on the right track. He said Mike Smith, Water and Wastewater, is pleased with the process. Johnson stated that he gave a presentation to the Optimist Club in September and they are also interested in getting the information out to the public. Smith said Frank Lancaster, Director of Larimer County Natural 8 n Resources, wrote a leer apologizing for not be* able to attend the meeting since he was out of town. Smith stated that a collation of the commentary that was generated during the tours, meeting, and subsequent discussion, needs to be put together for interested parties. Smith stated that the Board should present the collation to Council and state what the Board believes can be done. Johnson agreed, and said that Council has been positive in the past and after they receive the Board comments, efforts should be made to open it up to the public, possibly in the early spring. Smith recommended having a worksession October 21 to work on the report and to work on the Board's workplan for 1993. Committee Reports Smith stated that committees need to be thinking of their workplans for 1993 and be ready to work on them at the worksession. Staff will provide copies of the committee's workplans from 1992. Shoemaker will also get a rough idea of items from "key" departments that intend to come to the Board in 1993. Johnson distributed a letter to the Board regarding a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Board (P&R Board) supporting the Citizen Initiated Ordinance on the Proposed Quarter -cent Sales and Use Tax for Natural Areas. The P&R Board passed it 9:0. The Board asked that Council authorize the name "The Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Board" be used as supporting this ordinance. If Council is not inclined to take a position of advocacy with regard to this ballot issue, the Board, in alternative, asked that Council permit the Board to do so. Johnson asked Boardmembers if the NRAB would like to take the same action. Shoemaker stated that there will be a resolution on Council's October 20, agenda regarding Council's support of the ordinance. Smith stated that in terms of actions the Board can take, the alternatives are: 1) request that Council support the sales tax initiative for natural areas, and 2) instead of asking for the right of advocacy, just state the Board's support for P&R Board in their action. Shoemaker stated that what the P&R Board is doing is asking Council if it is within their charter. Erthal moved and Friedman seconded that the NRAB recommend to Council to support the quarter -cent sales and use tax for natural areas. The motion was unanimously approved. Erthal moved and Miller seconded that the NRAB ask Council to allow the Board to take an advocacy position on the ballot initiative similar to P&R Board. Z Shoemaker restated . it the way the NRAB and that Council should take a position and speak for it Boards and Commissions. He said that Council that; historically they have not taken a position on October 6 did not take a position. So what P& The motion was passed unanimously. Shoemaker will draft the letter to Council. R Miller stated that he attended the Boards and Commissions Chair meeting on October 2. Diane Jones presented the Cost of Development study; Miller asked Shoemaker to include the information presented in a Board mailing. Shoemaker stated that the current emphasis is on the actual cost of developments as they come in, or an initial base -line study, and beyond that there are questions about impacts of development. It is described as three phases. Staff will provide the Board with the new information that is available. Miller stated that the Cost of Development Study needs to progress in the new Council's term. Miller stated that the Poudre River Landscape Opportunity Study had an open house August 19 where the public could review the data bases, maps, etc. and offer comments. They are anticipating a final public report will be out soon. The report will include comments from the open house as well as the July 9 workshop, interview results, and a background brief addressing historic data and existing conditions within the study area. He asked Shoemaker to provide copies for the Board. LaRue stated that she, Friedman, Knudsen, and Bothwell attended the Boards and Commissions workshop sponsored by City Attorney's office on September 30. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. 10