Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 09/04/1991MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD 281 N. COLLEGE AVE. - CONFERENCE ROOM SEPTEMBER 4, 1991 Board Members Present Harold Swope Phil Friedman Bill Miller Tim Johnson Chuck Davis Will Smith Steven Erthal Board Members Absent Christine Ferguson (unexcused) Deni LaRue Staff Present Tom Shoemaker Edith Felchle Julie Bothwell Shirley Bruns Eric Bracke Joe Frank Guests Present Frank Lancaster - Larimer County Natural Resources Director Kit Cohner - Citizen Minutes In referring to his vote in approving the July Minutes, Erthal stated that he would like the record to show that he is opposed to burning hazardous materials and that he feels it is not appropriate for the Board to mention burning at all. He would like to discuss the matter further in a future meeting. After Erthal clarified his position it was moved, seconded, and unanimously approved that the Minutes of the August 7, 1991 NRAB meeting be accepted. Friedman suggested that each meeting begin with introductions of those who are not members of the board. New Business Larimer County Intermediate Processing Center (IPC) Frank Lancaster, of the Larimer County Department of Natural Resources, was present to give an update on the IPC. The purpose of an IPC is to take the materials collected from curbside recycling, prepare them for market, and then do the actual marketing. The center would serve northern part of Colorado and southern Wyoming. The following four firms bid: New England Crinc, Waste Management, BFI, a local recycling firm comprised of Nelson Metals and Baldwin Construction. New England Crinc 1 proposed an automated system and had the highest capital cost of $4.2 million, but the lowest operating cost. other firms and Waste Management both proposed systems with manual sorting off a conveyor belt. They all presented good proposals, but Crinc and Waste Management were chosen as finalists. BFI's proposal was a little weak and expensive, and Larimer County Recycling had little experience and highest operating costs. Lancaster said what is being looked at is a subsidy that would come from an increase in the landfill fees ranging from a high of $930,000 a year to a low of $400,000 a year. Lancaster said they plan on visiting some Crinc and Waste Management sites during the first week of October. Crinc has sites in Wisconsin and Illinois, and Waste Management has sites in Minnesota and Philadelphia. Larimer County Commissioners are still concerned with the fee at the landfill increasing from the current rate of $1.50 a cubic yard to $4.00. A marketing survey is being done throughout Larimer County to see what percentage of people are willing to have their trash fees increased to support the IPC. Survey results should be in by October 4. County personnel are receiving comments from the public both in support of, and opposed to, the increased fees. Lancaster said they plan to present the Commissioners with the cost of the facilities and a recommendation of a company the week of October 7. The Commissioners will then make a decision on whether or not to proceed. Smith asked when the IPC would be in place. Lancaster replied in early spring of 1992, but there is a requirement that they supply an interim facility starting immediately. Thus, the haulers would be served in a minimum capacity immediately. He said the County will continue working with the city, and continue taking aluminum, glass, and newspaper until the facility is completed. Smith asked what minimum collection items were required to be included in the IPC bids. Lancaster answered there were 15 items ranging from all the types of plastics to chipboard. Friedman asked what impact the IPC would have on the average curbside recycler. Lancaster replied that it would lower their cost. It would also give them access to large markets that will not bother with the small haulers. It will provide an economic incentive to the hauler, because right now the hauler loses money 2 when picking up curbside and with the IPC haulers would be paid for recyclable items. Erthal asked if the increased land fill fee is the only option that has been looked at for funding the IPC. Lancaster replied that is the only option the Commissioners will consider. Miller asked what traffic load is expected at the landfill. Lancaster replied that he does not see a significant increase, approximately two to three semi -trucks on site a day. Shoemaker commented that Council is supportive of the IPC and is encouraging the County to go ahead with the facility. They are having one of their quarterly meetings the week of September 9, and the IPC will be discussed. Lancaster said some negative comments are coming from small businesses, individual citizens that haul their own trash, and small construction firms. Erthal asked if there was going to be a special qualified rate to contractors just as there is a commercial rate now. Lancaster replied that it will be looked into. HEAD Recycling Goals Smith stated that the NRAB and the Natural Resources Division need to provide Council with a set of goals that could be recognized for the entire recycling program. Shoemaker said that he, Smith, Bruns, are in the process of developing those goals. He handed out a draft of "Solid Waste Management Program Goals and Objectives for the City of Fort Collins." He stated that action is not being looked for at this time because the City's program is closely tied to what happens with the IPC. The goals are being established assuming the IPC will be built because it is the City's understanding that this commitment was made a year ago. Shoemaker reviewed the goals and objectives with the Board. He stated the approach for the recycling program is that Fort Collins should be among the best recycling program in the country. Staff has reviewed the characteristics of the best recycling programs in terms of waste reduction found that they achieve 40% waste reduction. Shoemaker said this occurs with a combination of comprehensive curbside recycling programs and comprehensive composting programs. Other characteristics include mandatory participation. With the County's adoption of the pay -- as -you -throw ordinance the incentive should be in place by July 1992. The best programs in the country are not only targeted at residential, but also at commercial and institutional 3 establishments as well. Shoemaker commented that in comparison to these characteristics, Fort Collins is not in bad shape assuming the IPC is established and that the County stays with the pay -as -you - throw ordinance. He said the main elements to work on are a comprehensive composting program, and then keeping track of progress over time. He feels that the City will look at mandatory participation only if the voluntary program is not progressing successfully. Shoemaker said what is being arrived at is an overall goal for a comprehensive waste management program that would target a 40% waste reduction. A reasonable time period still needs to be established. To reach the 40% waste stream reduction 17-22% needs to come from recycling which would mean a 75-100% participation rate with 50-100% recycling effectiveness on the part of each individual. Smith commented that at one time a neighborhood program was discussed as part of the education program. He would like for this to be discussed further. He also asked how annual programs would be handled, e.g., telephone books, christmas tree program. He questioned if the objective "maximize the amount of natural resources conserved through source reduction and recycling practices", should be "precycling." Smith also stated that with continuous discussion of materials, he does not want the handling of household hazardous waste to be forgotten because of the consideration of household solvents. Shoemaker replied that staff will be working on hazardous materials waste reduction the beginning in 1992. Shoemaker stated that staff will bring the revised draft back to NRAB in November. Also, if the IPC is not approved, the curbside program will still continue, but the City of Loveland and City of Fort Collins may jointly see what they can do to facilitate an IPC. Shoemaker stated that the City owns a composting facility at the Resource Recovery Farm that is used to compost sludge in the winter. The Wastewater Treatment Plant is experimented this summer and fall with grass clippings and woodchips to determine what the process would be and to see what kind of product they get. A recommendation is expected by February. In the meantime, Bruns has been approached by a citizen from Wellington who expressed interest in taking woodwaste and grass clippings. This will be investigated further and see if a public -private partnership can be worked out. Shoemaker commented that staff is aware of the decrease in facilities that will accept used motor oil. Short term options 4 are being looked at to work with until long term options are available. Smith asked if the next step, relative to the goals and objectives, is for the board to make recommendations for legislative action on a local and/or state level. Shoemaker replied yes. The Recycling Committee will identify some recommendations or a set of legislative actions that could be taken for City and/or State. T�a Transportation Plan Eric Bracke, from the Transportation Department was present to talk about the Transportation Master Plan. He stated that approximately a year and half ago the City started a process of developing a comprehensive transportation plan that would look at automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, and transit. The planning process was divided up into four phases: Phase I, data collection and model development, has been completed. Phase II, developing the mission statement goals and objectives, is approximately half way completed. Phase III will be action plans; Phase IV the implementation plans and schedules. The Ad - Hoc Transportation Committee has come up with their goals and objectives, and mission statements for the plan. He said the Ad - Hoc Transportation Committee wants input from boards and commissions, and from the public. There will be an insert in the September 8 issue of the Coloradoan, it is also being mailed out to citizens, and to specific groups and organizations. The insert gives some history of what the transportation plan is and where the process is. .It gives the mission statement, goals and objectives, and a glossary to define some of the terms. The Ad - Hoc Transportation Committee will be having open houses September 18, 24, and 26. Bracke said the overall heart of the transportation plan is the movement of people, goods, and services in an environmentally sound manner, and promoting a balance between providing additional capacity for automobile, traffic and demand management. It focuses on trying to get people out of the single occupant automobile and into other alternate modes. The plan looks at fostering public and private partnerships to develop new transportation facilities. Bracke commented that there is still a lot of work to be done. He said that action plans are starting to be developed that set in motion implementation of projects, schedules, and funding sources to implement the objectives in the plan. The products of this process will be a new master street plan based on all the objectives. The bicycle plan, pedestrian plan, auto/truck plan, and transit plan are integrated as one 3 comprehensive transportation plan. Bracke said Earl Wilkinson, Chair of the Ad -Hoc Transportation Committee, would like to know what the Board thinks about the goals and objectives. Bracke said the plan will be revised in October, taken to Council work session in November, and an action plan developed in March and April 1992. Smith commented that he was unclear how the priorities were set Bracke replied that the way the Ad -Hoc Transportation Committee looked at the priorities was not by importance, but by what was doable in the first few years. The Transportation Committee was assigned responsibility for developing draft comments on the Transportation Plan Goals and Objectives for review at the October meeting. Solar Orientation Smith stated that the information received in the mailout was the document put together by the Solar Orientation Technical Advisory Committee. He handed out a memorandum that the Board sent to City Council in February when the first review was completed. Joe Frank, Assistant Planning Director, gave an update on the Solar Orientation Project and received comments from the Board. Council has given direction and a resolution to persue the following five tasks: 1. amend the LOGS to include a solar lot orientation requirement for all single and two family lots; 2. look at amending subdivision regulations to include solar lot orientation for single and double family lots; 3. look at amending the LDGS to include a building orientation requirement for multi -family buildings; 4. amend the residential point chart to provide an incentive for residential developers to go above and beyond the minimum requirement standards; 5. develop information about solar orientation and talk with developers and builders. 6 Frank stated that all these have been addressed except developing the information material. They would like to wait and see what direction Council gives and what the regulations look like before they do this. The project has been through a six-month process including a steering committee made up of representatives from the real estate industry, the building and development industry, members of the Planning and Zoning Board, the NRAB, a member from Citizen Planners, and Doug Swartz from Light and Power. They have come up with specific recommendations. Frank said that they are going to recommend that the LDGS and subdivision regulations require that 70% of lots be solar oriented. Solar oriented means that the front lot line be within 30 degrees of east and west. Multi family dwellings would be excluded because it is a much more complicated issue. Frank said they are recommending a new bonus be included in the LDGS density chart for residential developers who go above and beyond the 70% requirement. He plans on presenting the recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Board September 23, and to Council in October or November. He would like to receive a recommendation from the NRAB on the changes that are being proposed. Johnson asked whether with ten bonus points earned, the number of dwelling units would be increased one per acre. Frank replied that the more points that are received the more density is received. Frank said the P&Z Board recommended the bonus be added, but it is not much of an incentive for single family developments, because generally the density is low enough that the points are not as big an issue as they are for multi -family developments. He stated that they proposed a maximum of 20 points but the P&Z Board felt it was too much density. Friedman stated that there were three areas excluded from the proposed changes to the subdivision regulations: large lot subdivisions, foothill subdivisions, and minor subdivisions. If those are excluded, how do the solar orientation requirements relate to proposed changes in the LDGS. Frank replied that the requirements would be the same in the subdivision regulations and the LDGS would apply . He classified that, in certain zones of the City single family developments do not require a PUD, so the changes in the subdivision regulations are needed for those developments. Johnson stated that he would like the sentence in recommendation 3B that states, "Solar orientation standards are 7 not an effective way to encourage solar energy usage in multifamily buildings" removed. He feels that the statement is prejudicial, leading readers to think that it cannot be done. Johnson moved that the Board recommend the Solar Orientation Ordinance be passed by City Council as recommended by the staff report with the exception of the comment of solar orientations standards recommendation 3B. Erthal seconded the motion. Miller said he does not think the code for multi -family units will ever be changed to disallow anything other than "single loaded" buildings. Frank replied that there were other reasons: site planning for multi -family development is much more complicated; the size and the way the utilities go into a site often dictate the design. Frank stated they will revisit multi- family from an energy conservation standpoint at a later date. Smith stated that he would like to see the board's previous recommendation to Council incorporated in the comment, -- "this only allows for the opportunity, it does not insure any action." Johnson said the multi -family comment could be restated to say "Site Planning is more complicated for multi -unit dwellings, so it should be considered later if the Planning and Zoning Board desires in adopting such a statement." Frank said the change would be made. Johnson and Erthal accepted the amendment. The Motion carried unanimously. Committee Reports Friedman announced that he served on the community panel to interview the new Development Services Director. He was on the panel as a citizen and not as a Board member. Others that served on the panel were Kelly Ohlson, previous Councilmember and Mayor; someone from CSU who works in the EEO Office; Chuck Mabry, who held the position eight years ago; Linda Hopkins, who works with The Group as a marketing director for development; Gina Janett, who is a freelance urban planner; Bill Neal, the owner of Wheeler Realty; Mike Doten, president of Sierra Club and NCR employee; and Joe Carroll, an attorney, and president of the Chamber of Commerce. There also was an employee panel made up of employees of the departments that would be under this person and an executive panel of people from the City Manager's office and E- Team. There were six candidates interviewed. The final two choices were a woman from Lakewood, who worked with a company that developed leadership programs for municipal officials and a man is currently from Tucson, Arizona, but formally was a community develop manager for the City of Eugene, Oregon for ten 8 • years. Friedman said the consensus of his group, as well as the other groups, was that those were the two people who should be given serious consideration. They did have different levels of expertise, and different focuses in their careers, but it was felt they would be good for the position. Both had good management and leadership skills. Shoemaker stated that he was on the employee panel. He felt it was a positive process and that there was a good set of candidates. Shoemaker said that it has been narrowed down to three candidates: Nancy Freed from Lakewood, Greg Byrne from Tucson, and Paula Valente from Auburn, Maine. City Manager Burkett and Deputy City Manager Jones are now doing background checks on the candidates. Smith asked if a hiring date was set. Shoemaker replied that an announcement could come as early as tomorrow or as late as two to three weeks depending on salary negotiations etc. Smith would like for the new director to visit with the board in November or December. Smith asked if everyone was on the committees they want to be on. Erthal stated that he would like to serve on Hazardous Materials, and Recycling committees. Committee chairs were chosen as follows: Water Committee - Swope, Education Committee - Friedman, Recycling Committee - Smith, Land Use - Miller, Hazardous Materials - Erthal, Transportation - Johnson. Responsibilities of the chair include (1) when items are identified as needing committee attention, the chair makes sure the committee meets and executes the item, and (2) to review the committee goals that were set up last year and see what the progress is and formulate new goals for the coming year. Smith stated that the 1992 work plan needs to completed by the end of November and the results of 1991 efforts need to be completed by January. Shoemaker stated that in terms of looking ahead to 1992 one thing that needs to done is to review the Natural Resources Division workplan. Smith asked that each committee have their goals ready for 9 review at the October meeting. The final work plan will be approved in November. Smith asked if the Board would like to have a retreat and if so what would they like to do at the retreat. He stated that previous discussions suggested waiting, and having a retreat after the budgeting process. This way they could look at where the Council came out regarding objectives and plans for 1992. Shoemaker commented that it was also decided to wait until the new members were appointed. It was agreed to table this discussion until the October meeting. .71 LaRue and Ferguson were going to present this item. Both were absent so it was agreed to table this until the October or November meeting. Announcements Shoemaker handed out a memo from the City Attorney in regard to public notices. There are changes regarding the posting of public notice of meetings. There currently is a notice requirement on all regular meetings of the Board. There is a new requirement that a 24-hour notice be posted of all informal gatherings of boards and the committees of those boards. The notice must be posted in the lobby of City Hall West. Each committee chair needs to notify Felchle no later than 24 hours before the meeting. The City Manager has also directed that a staff liaison attend all committee meetings so that they can provide assistance. Smith asked how this notice requirement applies to committee meeting that occur via phone. Shoemaker will check with the City Attorney's Office. Shoemaker assigned staff liaisons to each committee as follows: Water Committee - Shoemaker; Education Committee - Felchle; Recycling Committee - Bruns; Land Use Committee - Wilkinson; Hazardous Materials Committee - Woodruff; Transportation Committee - Woodruff. Shoemaker said that the Parks Department has request funding from the Mitigation Fund for an open space site. There is still $2,000 remaining in the account and $3,000 in interest. He 10 recommended going through the RFP Process so people have a fair chance at it. Shoemaker will go to Council to see if the $3,000 in interest can be added to bring the funding amount to $5,000. Consensus of the board to have staff put out an RFP for projects for the mitigation fund. Felchle announced that she brought posters advertising the Environmental Fair to be held September 21. She asked board members to take copies to post at their workplaces. Smith, on behalf of the board, presented Johnson a certificate of achievement, and thanked him for all that he did as Chair of the Board. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. 11