Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 10/06/1993and Natural Resources Division Services recycledpaper City of Fort Collins MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING ST. PETER'S EVANGELICAL CHURCH - 4610 HOGAN DR. OCTOBER 6, 1993 Reference: Bill Miller, NRAB Chair - 493-7693 Chris Kneeland, Council liaison - 221-2950 Tom Shoemaker, Staff liaison - 221-6263 Members Present Bill Miller, Tim Johnson, Katy Mason, Craig McGee, Phil Friedman, Will Smith, Lisa Howard, Hal Swope Members Absent (ezcused) Terri Knudsen Staff Present Tom Shoemaker, Julie Bothwell, Rod Rieman, Sherry Albertson -Clark Approval of Minutes It was moved, seconded, and unanimously approved that the Minutes of the September 1, 1993 NRAB meeting be accepted as written with the following changes: (1) Friedman noted that some of his comments were missing from the discussion of the Poudre Riverwalk Proposal; (2) Swope stated that on page seven under Committee Assignments, he is serving on the Natural Areas Committee; (3) Miller stated that on page four, paragraph six, sentence five should read: "And then lastly the study would develop a master plan that would identify appropriate uses for various locations;" (4) Page five, paragraph two, sentence two should read, "He stated that he has heard an idea of keeping the northeast side of the river undeveloped as possible; he is not sure where a performing arts center and amphitheater would be constructed." Shoemaker stated that Staff is trying to shorten minutes by presenting the main points of the discussions. Comments from Chairman Miller stated he will do his utmost to keep the Board organized and that he will do his best serving as Chair. He hopes to see a more active committee structure. Neighborhood Compatibility Report Sherry Albertson -Clark presented the Neighborhood Compatibility Study. She stated that she would likA to have formal support in the form of a 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6600 letter from the Board. She stated that the Study will be presented to Council at their worksession on October 13, 1993. Clark explained that in the 1990 audit of the -Landscape Development Guidance System (LDGS) a series of improvement projects were identified and categorized as low, medium, and high priorities. One of the high priority projects was to better define neighborhood compatibility and to look at ways to improve the process that is used in order to determine compatibility. Clark stated that staff was not able to begin the study until 1992 and at that time a consulting team of Linda Ripley and Bob Komives with Ripley Associates and Marty Zeller of Design Workshop, Inc. was hired. The team began interviews with small groups of people who had knowledge about the system and how it worked. Those interviews revealed a number of concerns about how the current system was working and identified several common themes. After the interview process, a roundtable discussion was held to bring people from the small groups together. From the focus groups and the roundtable, an Advisory Committee was appointed to advise staff and the consultants. Two community workshops were held to gather input and to begin seeking solutions within the community. Clark stated that the series of recommendations called "Process Considerations and Changes" deals with how staff determines compatibility; the development review process; how staff notifies citizens that are in neighborhoods where there are proposed developments; conceptual review; how staff provides recommendations to the P&Z Board and a big focus on neighborhood meetings. Clark stated that another element that came out of the study was the concept of looking at a different levels of detail at the preliminary and final review stages. She said that the preliminary plan now looks at land use, but also looks at a lot of design elements. Staff feels that the preliminary review should be more focused on land use and not focused so much on design. Miller stated that he would like to see a lot of focus on land use at the first step. He said this could save a lot of money on the part of the developers and a lot of controversy between various factions within the community if the developer was apprised of concerns about the sensitivity of an area. They could then factor that into their design, as opposed to the process that presently exists. Clark stated that staff feels that recommendation H1, "Develop 'best local practice' resource guides", will have real merit and will provide visual examples to illustrate the criteria. She said that staff is also excited about recommendation H2, "Establish a professional position in the City organization to serve as a Neighborhood Ambassador". Because of the increasing amount of citizen participation, assigning a staff person that is knowledgeable about planning, as well as other City issues can help. citizens work through the planning process. McGee asked for examples of the problems that are driving recommendation D1, "Establish a mechanism or clear process for resolving interdepartmental or inter -service area issues on development proposals." Clark answered that it is not really problematic in CPES because when there 2 is a conflict you get to one point, Greg Byrne, Service Director. When there is a conflict with another service area, then to get to a single point of contact, you may have to involve the City Manager's Office. She said that conflict does not happen too often, but when it does it exhausts tremendous amount of staff time and creates a lot of frustration. McGee stated that it sounds like the P&Z Board is the ultimate arbitrator. Clark stated that it is, but these are things that ideally staff tries to resolve before it gets to the Board. Shoemaker stated that if you have some kind of device like that, it would.give you the opportunity for some alternatives around particular approaches to an issue. Clark stated that with the proposed criteria the community -wide issues are in the system now and will not change. The engineering issues will also stay the same. She said the focus has been on the neighborhood criteria. Clark said that the proposal to delete "social compatibility" has gotten mixed reviews. The majority of the committee members have said that the criteria should be deleted because 1) the committee has not come up with a way to define it and, 2) there are legal concerns that it could be used in a discriminatory fashion. Clark stated that the social compatibility criterion had been added to address concerns of members of the Prospect/Shields neighborhood. The neighborhood is very close to CSU and it has had some specific issues from a land use density standpoint. The neighborhood is concerned about the proposal to delete the criterion. Clark stated that staff is asking Council for some direction because they have received feedback from people who have said, "delete it", and from some people who want to keep it. Staff feels that if they do keep the criterion, they will need to come up with a way to define it. When staff has talked to some of the residents they have tried to have dialogue about what "social compatibility" is and have tried to come up with a way to capture that and measure it. At present, they have not been able to. Clark stated that the recommendations will expand neighborhood compatibility criteria from four to eighteen. People who are especially concerned with losing the social compatibility criterion do not see the system that way and staff still has quite a bit of work to do to resolve those differences. Swope stated he feels that the report addresses many issues and problems that have needed to be looked at for a long time. He asked if delivery systems are addressed. Clark answered that this issue is addressed in the report on page 9A under "Truck Traffic." Friedman asked if a development goes in with an estimate of 35 trucks a week, and then it significantly exceeds that amount, how would the additional traffic be addressed given the fact that the report was used to guide the P&Z approval. He asked if there were any teeth in the report to mitigate or require corrective actions for violations that occur. Clark answered that enforcement would not change from what they have at present. The.cleanest way is for there to be a condition that actually limits traffic; that then gives staff the ability to go out and specifically enforce the condition. 3 Johnson asked how it is enforced. Clark answered that a phone call is first used and, if the situation is not corrected, then a zoning violation is issued. Zoning violations can result in fines. She said that anything that is on an approved plan and is not being met or has not been completed or is not done properly is technically a zoning violation. Howard asked if developers were willing to put off some of the finalized development until the very last and willing to go in with rough sketches. Clark answered that the developers so far like the idea. She said that the developer's point of view is that there is no predictability until they have some preliminary approval and they would rather spend less money to get to that point. Mason moved and Howard seconded that the NRAB support the Neighborhood Compatibility Study as designed. The motion passed 7-1 with Smith opposing. Staff will draft a letter of support for the Chairman's signature. ate on 8oseil Creek Natural Areas Invent At the Board's request Rod Rieman, Natural Resources Intern, was present to give the Board an update on the inventory.process. He has inventoried the natural areas outside the UGA to find out what is there. Rieman presented a slide show of natural areas between the Urban Growth Areas of Fort Collins and Loveland and including the Fossil Creek Area. Rieman stated that around Fossil Creek Reservoir there is a lot of wetland habitat, a lot of riparian cottonwood forest and large water bodies. Rieman stated that he saw many species that are on the Colorado and Fort Collins lists of species of concern as well as one or two on the - Federal list. Rieman stated that due to the different habitat types that can be found as one travels from east to west, the habitat changes basically from grasslands and agricultural lands to foothills shrubland, and pine forests so there is great diversity of wildlife and habitat. He stated that with the increasing pressure put on by the expanding cities these lands will be lost. Shoemaker gave an update on the progress of the Loveland -Fort Collins Corridor Study. He said that a variety of focus groups are being held. The focus groups are primarily looking at resources and issues in the area end attempting to come up with visions or ideas of what they would like the =ridor to be. There will be some process to try and bring that together and then an evaluation of how to make it happen._ independently of that, the Natural Resources Division has been doing Some activities related to the Fossil Creek area. One important one was a :ield trip that was taken with the Division of Wildlife to look at Fossil Creek Reservoir, Cooper Slough, and some other places -- to see if the Division of Wildlife is willing to commit some resources toward protecting natural areas. The response was very positive and staff plans to convene a group of biologists to sit down with the inventory information and begin to outline some boundaries for acquisition areas and conservation areas. 4 Growth Management committee Smith said that the Board has not actually reviewed the Phase I of the Cost of Development Study; it was heard in a worksession but not all boardmembers were present and the committee feels that the review should be presented to the Board for general comments. He stated that he feels the fee structure is backwards. Friedman stated that the committee discussed the need for a density map of the city that identifies residential and commercial development and overlays densities so that people can actually see where the density holes are in terms of what areas could benefit from infill and what areas would be excluded because they are already at the density levels mandated by Zoning or other constraints. Shoemaker stated that something similar is in the works. Smith explained why he voted against the Neighborhood Compatibility Study. He said that it is still the situation that we are not addressing the big items, "we are fiddling while Rome burns." He is not sure why it is called neighborhood compatibility, it is a public input system that should have been pulled out and set aside. It rearranges the same criteria that have got us to where we are now. He did not see is as an advancement, it is inappropriately titled, and he feels that it has gone the wrong way. Shoemaker stated that along with himself he will ask Greg Byrne, Community Planning and Environmental Services Director, Tom Peterson, Planning Director and Rick Ensdorff, Transportation Director to attend the November 3, NRAB meeting to tell the Board how they are trying to sort through it all within their work programs. Report on Rater Treatment Plant i Proieat Miller handed out a letter from Randy Balok, Manager of Parks Planning and Development regarding the Focus Group for Water Treatment Plant ,#1. Miller stated that the group is still thrashing around trying to figure out how they are going to fund the proposal to put in a 40 foot radius curve that would accommodate large vehicles and vehicles towing rafting equipment. The Forest Service has an interest in getting the rafters off the highway, and strong interest, along with the Division of Wildlife and State Parks, in environmental education. They all see the water treatment facility as providing an ideal location to have some interpretive and environmental education facilities. Miller said the State Highway Department says you cannot get in to the area unless you improve the access. The State Highway Department has a desire to cut into the hillside which would increase the site distance and would straighten out the road, and would provide room to put in enhanced access. He said that to do this would cost $965,000, and everybody is concerned about where the money will come from. He stated that he suggested that if they come up with a vision for use of the area and turn it back over to the City, the City will get interested and drive the process to come up with the money. Smith stated that there are two issues at play. The issue of access and the issue of a dam. Johnson stated that there is a meeting October 7, 1993 to discuss access alternatives. G-q Report on Environmental Clearinghouse A draft proposal to the City regarding the Environmental Clearinghouse was included in the Board's packet. .Miller stated that regarding the budgetary considerations and location, there are some things that need to be pursued with respect to approaching the City for sponsorship of a location. He said that hopefully this can be worked out in context with the Environmental Learning Center. The role of the clearinghouse may still be in a changing mode. Miller stated that he will keep the Board up to date. Update on Poudre River Landscape Opportunity Shoemaker stated that the formal LOS effort is on hold at the present because Kari Henderson, Planning Department, resigned and she was the key City staff person doing the study. The Council Policy agenda is extremely ambitious and staff is still sorting out how it is all going to come together. Shoemaker is confident that the study will continue. What needs to be sorted out is how staff is going to take the various implementation tasks from the LOS and get the work done. Some of it will come to the Natural Resources Division and some to the Planning Department. Staff needs to look at what specific steps are needed to advance the LOS, bring it to some kind of closure with the community, and then get the work done. He said he hoped a plan would be ready in approximately a month. Developing the 1994 Work Plan for the NRAB Shoemaker stated that the Board's work plan for 1994 needs to be done by the end of November. The Board decided for committee members to send their ideas to the chair of that committee by October 19 and the chair combine the ideas and submit them to staff by October 26. Staff will merge.the draft ideas and present it to the Board at its November 3 meeting. Then a final version will be prepared for revision and adoption at the November 17 special meeting. Other Committee Reports Smith recommended that the Board submit a letter of thanks.to Fairway Estates for the Steak Fry that was held before the meeting. Mason stated that the letter the Board presented to Council regarding the Poudre Riverwalk feasibility study stated that the Board voted unanimously to recommend that Council include funding for the feasibility study in the 1994 City Budget. The board did not vote to recommend that and she feels uneasy about it. Shoemaker stated that there was some misinterpretation. He said that it is critical to clarify what the Board's position is because Council will be considering the first reading of the budget ordinance on October 19. He stated a motion will likely be made to add a certain amount of money to the budget for the feasibility study. Johnson moved and Smith seconded to correct the previous letter to reflect what was said in the September 1 minutes as opposed to what was 11 said in the letter. He would like a statement ad2d that if there is a feasibility study, it should have a strong focus on what it will take to develop a riverwalk with maximum continuity of natural areas. Smith recommended not to make a motion on the letter, but to make a motion on the proposal for funding the Poudre Riverwalk feasibility study. The motion was unanimously opposed. Smith moved and Friedman seconded that the NRAB not recommend the Poudre Riverwalk Feasibility Study for funding. McGee stated that he is not sure that the Board wants to reject the proposal. He feels that it is an opportunity to look at restoration and reclamation along the river front. He stated that he is still supportive of the feasibility study with the strong qualifications and with the strong statement that the Board would like the feasibility study focused on.not only the riverwalk area, but also related reclamation or restoration activities. Miller stated that if a feasibility study is going to happen, this is the time to have the input on the direction that the study should take and to stress some of the concerns and considerations that the Board has. Smith stated that he feels that the Board should not recommend funding the feasibility study at this point because the information that Hendee presented at the September 1 NRAB meeting was so broad that he feels there is a lack of a clear picture of what they are attempting to do. Mason stated that her concern is that it may be a good opportunity for restoration but she does not feel that is the intention of the study as proposed. Friedman stated that there should also be a verbal communication to Council explaining and apologizing for the mistake clarifying what the Board really meant to say, and that another letter will be pryesented with the Board's concerns about the pros and cons of the project. The motion was passed 7-1, with Mcgee opposing. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M. 7