Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 08/20/1996MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD ADJOURNED MEETING 281 CONFERENCE ROOM - 281 N. COLLEGE AVE. AUGUST 20,1996 For Reference: Phil Murphy, NRAB Chair - 491-6303 Gina Janett, Council Liaison - 493-4677 Tom Shoemaker, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Ed Secor, Phil Murphy, Phil Friedman, Katy Mason, Jan Behunek, Craig McGee, Bill Miller Board Members Absent Linda Kirkpatrick and Kelly Ohlson Staff Present Natural Resources Dom: Tom Shoemaker, Sally Maggart The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. Guests Kent Payton and Ann'Watson, Victoria Estates residents Benson Reservoir Feasibility Study, Tom Shoemaker ISSUE The City foreclosed on the Provincetown SID last year. Council is interested in selling the property and making sure that the natural area needs are met. The Board previously recommended purchasing 160 acres around the reservoir for natural areas. Pridemark Homes has an option for 170 acres. The dam at Robert Benson Reservoir (Fairport Reservoir) has been declared unsafe and there are two years remaining to reconstruct or do something to lower the water to safe levels. A feasibility study analyzed several alternatives and staff is seeking a recommendation from the Board. Public outreach needs to be done before a decision is made. The staffs initial recommendation is to go with the breaching and wetlands option DISCUSSION • The City does not have any water rights or storage rights. The statement regarding this is incorrect on the second page, item III, History Background, in the Feasibility Study. • Anitabelle Graese does not store water in the reservoir; the water passes through the reservoir to irrigate her farm. • The City might not be able to legally purchase water rights for the reservoir. • A hydrologic study is needed. Natural Resources Advisory Board August 20, 1996 Page 2 • Permits would be needed from the Corps of Engineers for the wetlands. • Two reservoirs would allow the same approximate size without being jurisdictional. • The area was probably prairie with scattered wetlands before the dam was built. • Water needs to be conveyed through the system, either as a separate ditch or as it is. • Alternative 2 assumes water will be purchased and conveyed into the reservoir. • Water rights could be sold upstream. • Groundwater and surface water flows need to be quantified. • Most of the work and expense is earthmoving and landscaping. • Soils data is needed; there could be high alkali levels. • Access would be limited. • Land costs would be $900,000, approximately $9.00 per acre. • Basin does not have retention requirements. Stormwater's participation would be minimal. • Development would fall under the City's development criteria. FINAL COMMENTS Phil Murphy invited comments from the guests. Ann Watson said that she advocated maintaining the lake because it is a staging area for water fowl. She is concerned about maintaining the resource and the quality of life. Kent Payton noted that the Louden Ditch comes from the Big Thompson River and is part of the Grand Lake drainage area. He is concerned about the downstream effect. Phil Friedman said that to minimize the financial impact, Alternative 2 by itself is the best way to go. It is a reasonable attempt to preserve the wetlands. Alternative 3 makes the most sense to maximize the natural resources aspect and it is not the most costly. He noted that there are a lot of unkowns: ownership of water, 500 year flood event, etc. Friedman added that an alternative will have to be picked to best meet the needs of the City's financial interest, natural resources interest and the existing neighborhood. Jan Behunek said that Alternative 1 is unacceptable because of the small water area, loss of wetlands and expense. Alternative 5 is expensive and there is a loss of ecosystem. A combination of Alternative 2 and 3, without going with Alternative 2 for a long period of time because habitat and wetland will be lost, or Alternative 3 alone would be acceptable. He was concerned that there would be a temporary loss of the ecosystem during the Alternative 4 reconstruction. He will support Alternative 3 as the best chance to turn out something better than what now exists. Ed Secor said that Alternative 3 gets closer to how the area was originally. The commitment may have to be with Alternative 3 along with Alternative 2 to provide for the types of species that have moved into the area. Craig McGee said that he is leaning toward Alternative 3 with the following caveats: due diligence, soil composition study, and public outreach. r] Natural Resources Advisory Board August 20, 1996 Page 3 Katy Mason said that she prefers Alternative 3. There are still issues to be addressed and looked at again: how realistic are the costs, what are the unknowns and the variable costs. She asked if there would be a problem with access from Highway 287. Shoemaker responded that there will be no access from 287 because of the elevated land. Bill Miller said that he prefers Alternative 3. There is more hedge room financially and less terrain modification that would reduce the earthmoving. He added that there is the potential of increasing the wetlands with water impoundment plus making it more attractive for water fowl and wildlife. He requested more information on water availability and land sculpture costs. Phil Murphy said that he prefers Alternative 3. He agrees that it would be an opportunity to create new wetlands rather than taking out the ecosystem. He expressed concern about costs and the potential loss of water. Tom Shoemaker said that he did not hear anybody in favor of Alternative 5, the jurisdictional reservoir. He added that this is a key questions and important to the contract between the developer and the City because the other alternatives allow development to exist as outlined. Shoemaker noted that the purpose of natural areas funds is to maximize the habitat value of the land. DECISION Shoemaker said that he will return with answers to the Board's concerns. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. ✓PLEASE NOTE: Phil Murphy requested that board members have their comments on the*Parks and Recreation Master Plan written out for the September 4 meeting. There will be limited time allowed for this on the agenda.