Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 12/08/1993For Reference: MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING CIC CONFERENCE ROOM - 300 A. LAPORTE DECEMBER S, 1993 Bill Miller, NRAB Chair - 493-7693 Chris Kneeland, Council liaison - 221-2950 Tom Shoemaker, Staff liaison - 221-6263 Boardmembers Present Bill Miller, Craig McGee, Katy Mason, Tim Johnson, Will Smith, Lisa Howard, Hal Swope, Phil Friedman Staff Present Tom Shoemaker, Julie Bothwell, Edith Felchle, Rob Wilkinson Approval of Minutes It was moved and seconded that the minutes of the November 3, 1993 and November 22, 1993 NRAB meeting be approved. Johnson said that in the discussion of growth management on November 3, the minutes needed to be clarified that CPES Director had stated that the City Council had made the decision to delay proceeding with Phase 2 of the Cost of Development Study. Education CQ=1ttee Report --- 199• anvironmancal wacivn nwa&uw Education Chair Friedman was delayed in reaching the meeting, so Felchle began discussion of the Education Committee's approach to the 1994 Environmental Action Awards. Friedman joined the discussion after a few minutes. They noted that the committee is reviewing the approach and is proposing to change the awards next year. The changes proposed are to make the award categories topical (e.g., air quality, energy conservation, etc.) rather than by type of applicant; to seek involvement from other Boards and Commissions; and to hold the award ceremony in conjunction with the Environmental Fair in September. The committee wanted to inform the rest of the Board of the proposal before proceeding. Miller stated that they are thinking about restructuring the timing to present the awards to tie in with another event i.e., Environmental Fair to give the awards more awareness/publicity. Friedman stated that the Committee decided to look at all the Boards and see if there is any potential relationship to environmental issues. Shoemaker recommended that when it is all finalized the committee send a memo updating Councilmembers and asking if they have any input. He suggested keeping the format simple. Joe Wricht Reservoir Special Use Permit Friedman handed out a draft letter to the Board regarding the Joe Wright special use permit and potential litigation. He noted that the 1 intent of the letter was to underscore the Board's position about using negotiation, rather than litigation, to resolve the issue. Shoemaker explained that the City is taking a fairly radical position in the context of what other water users have taken relative to this and other instream flow issues. Friedman stated that the City feels that there is room to compromise. He said that based on the joint meeting between the Water Board and the NRAB to review issues related to the special use permit, the City position is a reasonable point of view, but if the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) refuses to agree with that he would like the City to say, "Okay let's take a new approach to this, let's call a meeting and let's hammer it out." Smith said he would like to see more specific suggestions in paragraph four, saying that before litigation is proposed, there should be a call for a mediated solution between the parties. Johnson said he felt the two Boards positions had been stated and it was time to go forward and see how well it will be received. He felt that Friedman's letter is a little premature. Smith moved and Mason seconded that the letter be approved and presented to Council. Smith recommended that paragraph four be more clear regarding the alternatives -- arbitration or mediation. Johnson suggested that in the discussion in paragraph two about technical flaws, he would like a sentence added saying that mainly the Board is referring to the inability to guarantee delivery of water to the affected portion of the Platte. The motion was unanimously approved, with the suggested changes. Recycling Program Recommendations .Shoemaker said that he will be meeting with the Council in worksession on December 28, 1993 to discuss proposed recommendations on the recycling program. Shoemaker stated that there are some issues that there are several major issues related to recycling programs: (1) Education programs are not working as well as staff thought they would and need some improving. (2) Participation in curbside recycling has been disappointing and the CRINC Recycling Center is operating at approximately 20% capacity, and they are not seeing a substantial reduction in landfill volumes from Fort Collins. (3) A majority of survey respondents cited "cost" as a major reason for not participating in curbside recycling. (4) Currently, 12 trucks per week could potentially travel down each residential street causing concerns about efficiency, noise, air pollution, and extra wear on the streets. (5) There is a City goal to support private enterprises. (6) There is substantial concern about the growth of government programs. (7) The current program has not looked in an integrated fashion at waste stream reduction. At the present some items are sent to the landfill and some to the processing center, but there is approximately 20-30% that could be composted and it seems realistic to achieve 40% waste reduction if all three components were looked at separately: recyclable materials, compostable materials, and waste. (8) State law at the present does not let the City regulate rates. It does not let the City grant exclusive 9 franchise, and it requires that if the City takes over the service there is a six month notice period to the private haulers." The City can not compel commercial or industrial establishments or multi -family residences to take City services if they were offered. (9) If the City considered establishing a solid waste utility, voter approval would be required to create an enterprise under Amendment 1 and to amend the City Charter to allow the additional utility. Shoemaker presented nine options that could be considered to compare to the evaluation criteria. He stated that we have limitations at the present but, for most of them, actions could be taken to make them possible. Shoemaker said he feels that we need to change the system, if we are going to truly achieve waste reduction and reduce the number of trucks on the streets. It would take the program back to what was recommended by the community, the NRAB and the staff originally. The way he is envisioning it is to expand the programs by looking in an integrated fashion at the whole waste stream. He will be recommending to Council to pursue creating a solid waste utility and contracting with private contractors to provide collection and recycling services in sectors of the City. Shoemaker recommends that the City work with Larimer County to see what can be done in the short-term to improve the effectiveness of the pay as you throw ordinance. Miller feels that the option of adopting an ordinance to make recycling mandatory should also be implemented. Mason stated that if everybody is paying for it rather than if they are charged by volume they will recycle, at the present it does not cost that much more to throw another bag out and the cost should be higher. Shoemaker recommended making an aggressive goal of waste reduction and having several objectives associated with that integrated approach that looks at waste reduction. Shoemaker said he plans to recommend both approaches to Council: directing staff to develop plans for a long-term program, but immediately going ahead with proposed modification of the current ordinance to tighten up some of the requirements and also to work with Larimer County to make the "pay as you throw" ordinance more effective. Smith suggested that information on current rates be added to City Line so citizens can call and find out what individual haulers charge. Johnson asked if Shoemaker saw any hurdles in dividing the City in to 10-15 segments and then bidding out each portion of that to the city. Shoemaker answered that there are two major hurdles, one will be the challenge of putting the plan together, and two will be doing so in a way that haulers will accept. Shoemaker stated that recommendations for the Education Program include: increasing staff commitment; involving more volunteers; relying less on printed media and focusing more on target audiences (including managers of multifamily apartment units, neighborhood groups and organizations, and local businesses); developing a stronger recognition program; enhancing internal recycling programs; and expanding the City's drop off site. Smith asked if a change in program structure was implemented, will the drop off sites be eliminated. Shoemaker answered that staff would not propose to eliminate their drop of, CRINC probably will not eliminate theirs, but he isn't sure what the grocery stores would do. Friedman asked if this effort would affect the inability to recycle other than number one or number two plastic. Shoemaker answered, not by itself, but the intent at the processing center is to increase materials accepted as the markets are there to handle other materials. Swope moved and Smith seconded that the NRAB enthusiastically support Shoemaker's recommendations of: (1) amending the current ordinance to make individual programs more consistent and requiring more public information by haulers, (2) making the "pay as you throw" ordinance more effective by increasing enforcement, changing to a "prepaid sticker" system, or adopting a City ordinance, and (3) creating a City solid waste utility and contracting with private contractors to provide collection and recycling services in sectors of the City. The motion was unanimously approved. Shoemaker stated that one of the items on the Council Policy Agenda is to take another look at opportunities to have natural areas in the core. The core refers to the downtown planning area, the east side planning area and the west side planning area. Council wants to know the status of natural areas in the older, more developed parts of town and to make some recommendations on how to maintain (or create) some natural area values in those parts of town. Shoemaker stated that staff has expanded the study area to include the Prospect Shields neighborhood and the North College area because these are two neighborhood planning efforts that are underway. The concept is to learn "what can be done about natural areas.in previously developed parts of town." Shoemaker stated that one of the current objectives in the NAPP reads: "Establish a system of publicly owned natural areas to protect the integrity of critical conservation sites. Protect corridors between natural areas, preserve outstanding examples of Fort Collins diverse natural heritage and provide a broad range of opportunities for educational interpretative, and recreational programs to meet community needs." What staff is working towards is something that would be added to this to add flexibility to acquire lands in intensively developed parts of Fort Collins where few natural areas remain and enhance their values to provide natural area benefits in the core of the City.. The second additional policy change would apply to the adopted acquisition criteria. Current policy states, "in evaluating potential natural area acquisition sites, priority will be given to natural areas with high resource values, properties where there is a willing seller and a comparatively low cost, natural areas that are not likely to be preserved without City action, natural areas that meet multiple City objectives or known objectives of other public agencies, and natural areas that offer special opportunities for public use." 4 Shoemaker recommends adding some,,,}anguage that says, "In the intensively developed parts of Fort 66'ilihs,'where natural areas with high resource value are not found, place additional emphasis on lands that offer the ability to meet multiple City objectives, that can be enhanced to provide natural area values, or that provide opportunities for buffers between land uses. Smith asked if staff was really talking natural areas or spaces that could be used almost as a lightly -developed park site, because the nature of the rehabilitation that might have to be done in those areas is quite different depending on what the perception is. Shoemaker answered that staff's recommendation would be that where there is an area of vacant land that does not have any habitat value the City would do a restoration plan; this would not really make it a truly natural area, but more of an undeveloped open space area. Mason asked if the NAPP is amended how does that affect the passage of the 1/4 cent sales tax in terms of that was passed with certain natural areas. Shoemaker answered that the tax is to be implemented by Council by ordinance. Friedman felt that there needs to be some criteria to determine priority and not just a priority based upon cost or location, but also priority based upon how viable the area will be as a natural area. Johnson noted that the Poudre River runs through the core area. He hoped the focus would remain on the river and on other viable natural areas. Mason asked if Parks funding sources could be used to accomplish some of these goals, since many sites would be better suited as a park use, not a natural area. Shoemaker said he would look into it,. but the most likely source would be "other open space" monies that are being used to buy natural areas. Shoemaker said that this presentation was intended as a general overview. The issue will be brought back to the board. considerations for Development Adiacent to Natural Areas Rob Wilkinson, Natural Resources Division was present to discuss some general policy ssues related to development proposals adjacent to natural areas. Shoemaker stated that the question is, "How should the proximity of the natural area affect the development planning." In the long term staff is moving towards having specific guidelines, laws, and criteria that relate to development in natural areas. Because there are some things that are going on at the present and there is debate about density issues related to it, staff is seeking feedback from the Board at this time. Wilkinson handed out copies of the "Private Land Management" section of the NAPP. He said that the adopted policies give some guidance: PR-1 says, "Use the City's regulatory powers to (1) direct growth away from sensitive natural features, (2) encourage the integration of natural areas into the developed landscape, and (3) preserve and protect the resources and values of natural areas". PR-2 says, "Encourage and assist efforts by private landowners and organizations to integrate natural areas into new development and to protect, restore, or enhance privately -owned natural areas". 5 Staff is in the process of completing a mitigation manual that will provide guidance through regulatory changes in the LDGS. Wilkinson stated that he primarily wanted to give some background on how the issues came up on Fossil Creek Estates, which is proposed to be developed south of the Cathy Fromme Prairie Area and on the west side of Shields and how staff has looked at the project within the present regulatory framework. He stated that staff has, in some ways, presented new interpretations of old policies and old regulations, and he feels that staff has created a climate in the City that is more open to a different interpretation of some of the criteria of the LDGS. Wilkinson presented a map of the areas that was defined in the NAPP as sensitive, with one being the Cathy Fromme Prairie. Shoemaker stated that staff is using this particular annexation and development proposal as an example. It is not technically the Board's job to be reviewing development proposals, but this proposal raises some policy issues that need discussion. Council asked staff to confer with the Board about those general types of policy issues. Wilkinson presented maps showing the different natural areas in the City and the different approaches that can be used. Some places can be protected through regulation. Other places can best be protected through acquisition and these are areas that were identified as priority acquisition sites. Wilkinson stated that the basic idea is that the ones that came out necessary for acquisitions were areas that were large grassland habitats, or areas along the foothills that did not have other regulatory overlays, such as floodplains or other hazards, that would protect them. He stated that the area they are looking at in terms of the proposed development is south of the Cathy Fromme Prairie. Wilkinson stated that in the development review process, staff is in a reactive mode to a certain extent. They look at properties to acquire and they define areas that are important, but those are partially based upon ownership boundaries and not always on topographic changes. The UGA boundary is another distinctive boundary on one of the sites. Wilkinson stated that part of the problem they deal with is people have taken the land and divided it up into properties not based upon ecological considerations. So when they get a development proposal, sometimes a developer will have some good developable ground and some other ares that he can consider leaving open as part of the unit that they are looking at. An irrigation ditch is the southern boundary of piece of property that staff is looking at. There is also a wetland and some natural drainage that occurs and there are some high grounds. Because of the lay of the land there is a basin that drains toward the wetland and a point of land that extends on to the Cathy Fromme Prairie Area and then starts another drainage sub -basin towards Shields. Shoemaker stated that what is being proposed is 131 units on 45 acres, consistent with the RLP Zone, which is the City's minimum density of 3 units per acre. One of the issues that some people, particularly residents in the Ridge Subdivision and Clarendon Hills, are concerned about is the M effect of density on the sensitivity,of,the natural area. They suggest it ought to be at a lower density. one question for the Board to react to is, "Is the lower density justified?" He said that staff is responding that they intentionally bought a large piece of ground with the understanding that there would be development next to it which would result in some human impact associated with the development. That is why staff recommended purchasing the larger piece of ground. If there was a substantial reason to say lower density is going to make a difference in the impact, staff would support this, but there are no data to suggest this. Shoemaker asked boardmembers what their response was to what people were saying that it should be lower density because it is next to a natural area. Smith stated that the topographical layout of the site, makes it impossible to mitigate the visual impacts to the natural area. The human impacts -- the traffic counts and factors that are going to be coming in off of Shields are not substantially different if its 130 units vs 200 units. If we want to mitigate the continued development against other areas, then we should be going to what the City was aiming for - 8 units per acre. Shoemaker responded that the approach that staff has been taking is that if a site is going to be developed it should stay at City standards, and should be as sensitive as it can to the relationship between this property and adjacent properties. The developers are requesting a couple of easements on the Fromme Property and staff is holding their feet to the fire to be compensated for the easements, to make sure that they know what the proposal is and to make sure that the natural area does not get damaged. Staff is not going the other way and saying, "because you are developing next to our area we are going to take another 100 feet of our land to provide the buffer". Mason and Miller were concerned "why not?" Shoemaker answered that this is a fundamental policy issue. As staff was looking at acquisition priorities and possibilities given the resource value of this particular area, staff determined that they needed to buy a big area. Eventually, you need to draw a boundary to the Natural Area. Wilkinson answered if staff told them that they would have to be looking at a higher density to meet their density requirements, the developers probably would not be interested because they don't think there is a market for the high density. Wilkinson said that this site has a lot of interesting topography. In certain situations, staff becomes very concerned about topography, and staff is here as well, but it is a situation where the whole site has interesting topography. The developers have tried to design the roadway around the basin to build the lots off the hills so there is going be some grading and changing of topography. But, generally the layout of the development is dictated by meeting the density requirements they had to meet and at the same time trying to deal with the product they were trying to develop on the site. Staff is not in the position, under existing regulation, of defining the product for the developer. Staff reviews projects under existing LDGS criteria. Wilkinson stated that one thing to keep in mind is that some developmnet is occurring now in a different kind of area topographically than when the policies under the LDGS were adopted. Land south of Harmony Road, north of Hwy 287, and to the east of the UGA starts presenting some interesting topography. So some of those density equations do not really begin to take in to account that there might be topographic issues or natural areas issues. Shoemaker recommended to go around the table and hear some of the thoughts and/or density and development questions that boardmembers have about the general issue of development occurring next to a natural area. Mason stated that it sounds like there is not anything that can be done. Shoemaker stated that some of the issues that have been raised, and that staff are responding to, have to do with density. Should it be a lower density because it is adjacent to a natural area? No. Because it is next to a City -owned natural area, should it be buffered regardless of the natural value of that particular site - there are two ways you could look at it - Should the City buy what it needs, or should the City buy the minimum and then try to and extract more from developments. What staff typically tries to do is to get the buffering around the sensitive features of a particular site. Swope stated that he feels that it makes a, lot of difference with what type of natural area is being talked about. He does not see any problem here, but if it was a riparian area where the wildlife values were all concentrated close to the development, then the buffering and anything else that could be done would be very important. Smith stated that if the development is going to occur, 90% of the deleterious effects will go in whether it's five units or 100 units. To mitigate those effects would depend on how that specific development may be put in, such as how much lighting there will be. Then maybe there is a need to change the nature of that lighting. However, regulation cannot control what the individual homeowner puts in for lighting. if somebody wants to put flood lights in their backyard on the north line, they will light all the way down to the bottom of the drainage. The city cannot regulate that. He stated that just by having the development there you get most of the deleterious effects. We should be holding the City to doing as much as possible to achieve targeted densities, not the minimum densities. McGee agreed with Smith. He feels that there might be some buffering considerations that could be used to mitigate both visual and traffic impacts. Johnson stated that we really need to consider buffers in acquiring the lands. Wecan not rely on the development to provide the buffers. He feels that buffers are very important. Wilkinson stated that part of the frustration with this development is that it was brought up as a conceptual plan before the sales tax initiative was passed. Friedman asked if you take this development up to eight units per acre, what does that number of people and that number of cars, lights, etc. do to the ability and willingness of wildlife to use that area as opposed to minimal density, which is three. 8 • Miller asked what the possibility, :xas-of requiring a setback on the property line. Wilkinson answered that at this stage, staff has not requested that because the approach on a natural area this size is to assume the buffer is part of the purchased area. There are not any documents that say we have to buffer; staff has talked with the developer about sensitive areas of the site, such as wetlands, but they have not asked for buffering for the grasslands. He feels that they would have to have data saying there is a reason to do that in order to require that of a developer. No matter where the line was drawn on what was purchased, that question would come up. Miller feels that we need to start setting some teeth right now as far as how natural areas can be used, what the access can be to it, and what the buffering needs to be. Swope asked if the City has the authority to prevent use of City - owned natural areas i.e., no vehicles or bikes and people must stay on trails. Shoemaker stated yes. Mason stated that she feels strongly that more fencing should be considered and asked what was wrong with having a fence that is there so people cannot just run on to the natural area and have free access. Shoemaker answered that most natural areas will be fenced so that there is no possible vehicle access. It would be tough to restrict access without a fence. Other Business McGee announced that there is a meeting of the Steering Committee for the Poudre River Walk on December 9, at 4:30 and Johnson will attend. Friedman stated that the Electric Board has been working with Light and Power on a "Demandside Management" project and feels that it is appropriate for the NRAB to receive an update on the project at a future meeting and present a letter to Council supporting it. Smith stated that it sounds like there is different perceptions of the Riverwalk. Miller stated there is still no firm idea of what the riverwalk will be. Shoemaker announced that Felchle will be coming to the January 5, NRAB meeting to discuss natural areas education programs. Miller announced that the Board would like to have a staff appreciation night at the meeting on January 5, 1994 with details following. Adiournuent The meeting was adjourned'at 10:30 9