Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParks And Recreation Board - Minutes - 11/18/1998Call Meeting To Order: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 p.m. at the Recreation Administration Conference Room. Citizen Participation: No citizen participation Items of Note: Lance thanked Marilyn Barnes for her past leadership as the Parks and Recreation Board President. Board Member Jessica MacMillan called to say she would be late this evening. Approval of Minutes: On a motion by Rebecca Chavez, seconded by Del Price, the Board unanimously (8-0) voted to approve the minutes of the meeting of October 28, 1998. Lee Martinez Park Drainage Craig Foreman spoke about the Lee Martinez Park drainage problem. He explained that the housing development on the top of the hill is causing some problems as their drainage from the project is collecting in the park. We are repositioning the water drainage so that it will drain away from the ballfields. The City is delaying the project because they (the developer) don't have their drainage problem solved with Stormwater. The area will be surveyed tomorrow and the channel design will be presented to the City again. Rebecca Chavez asked if there will be a fence separating the housing development from the park use area? Diane Thies asked what kind of impact will it have on the driveway and parking lot? Craig said that we can repave with a concrete pan in the parking lot to minimize asphalt drainage. Janet Meisel -Burns said that the Board reviewed these plans last year. She said because this park is so flat we have problem directing the water to the Poudre River. We have been told that we need to distribute that water through the park at some time when the Howes Street Overflow project is constructed. She explained that the woodlands area would filter that water. This discussion was informational only and staff will keep the Board updated. Note: Jessica MacMillan joined the Board prior to the discussion on the Horticulture Center Site Selection. Parks and Recreation Board Minuteb November 18, 1998 Page 2 Horticulture Center City Forester Tim Buchanan and Community Horticulturist Jim Clark addressed the Board stating that the past year we have had an active Horticulture Center Site Selection Committee and staff would like to make a recommendation to the Board tonight. The Site Selection Committee has reviewed this since last summer. Kathleen Byington, President of CSURF, Steve Wallner, Department Head of Colorado State University's Horticulture Department, and Jim Klett, Horticulture Professor at Colorado State University, were present representing CSU. Jim Clark distributed the project descriptions and advantages and disadvantages of both sites. He explained that the Horticulture Center Selection Committee has met weekly since spring. Council's directives were to keep looking for sites, rework the Martinez Park Proposal, and pursue a joint project with CSU. From that we looked at the CSURF site and Lee Martinez Park. During the last month we have had several meetings with neighborhoods and received citizen input. Jim explained that Councilman Will Smith suggested purchasing the businesses along College Avenue to expand the site at Lee Martinez. With this in mind, property values have been estimated and sent to the property owners. The comer is owned by the railroad at an offer of $9,000. The City may proceed to purchase this area even if the horticulture center is not built there. Precision Auto was estimated at $150,000 and the owner is an unwilling seller. The third property is valued at $68,000 and owned by CSURF. Jessica asked about the appraisal of the land for the person unwilling to sell. Jim replied the property owner feels his property is worth three times what our Right of Way Agent believes it to be worth. The advantages of Lee Martinez site are as follows: The whole downtown synergy area with the transition to the river and the natural backdrop is a plus. The site was originally designated as an arboretum. The topography is an advantage. This site would have greater visibility. A new advantage that has evolved is that there is substantially lower cost to develop with a difference of $577,000. The DDA offered $300,000 towards the project if it is built in downtown. Disadvantages of Lee Martinez: The limited size of 7.3 acres for the interior part. If these College Avenue properties were purchased, it would add 1.5 acres of land to the site. There would be less gardens; other constraints are the railroad goes through the property; impact on parkland use; more threat from wildlife and efforts to minimize damage; more neighborhood resistance and they are concerned with parking, traffic in general, and congestion in their neighborhood and the impact to wildlife habitat. However, it is still a viable site. CSURF Site: (CSU Research Foundation Site) The location is Center Avenue on the east and 15 acres adjacent to the trail and Spring Creek. Advantages to that site are as follows: The acreage; strong interest to locate a neighborhood park in this area of approximately 5 acres; possibility to purchase 80 acres for natural area; Horticulture Center could have more amenities at the CSURF area; the soil is better than Lee Martinez; and the neighborhood is very supportive. Parks and Recreation Board Minutes • November 18, 1998 Page 3 Disadvantages: Lack of downtown synergy, no variable topography, some constraints from the irrigation ditch. The bike trail would be relocated so it could go under Center Avenue at the Spring Creek bridge. Jessica questioned moving the trail and how much difference would it be to locate it on the other side of Spring Creek? Craig Foreman said approximately 50 feet. Marilyn asked if it is in the plan to relocate the trail any way? Craig said the bridge would be the additional cost of approximately $25,000. There are unrestricted views to the foothills at this time, but that development will probably occur in that area. The flooding that occurred last summer, taught us what not to do and we saw the worst case scenario. Greatest disadvantage is the price differential of $577,000. Jim Clark talked about the open house on October 22. Fourteen people preferred the Lee Martinez Site and 28 people were in favor of the CSURF site. Staff presented this to the Natural Resources Board on November 4 and they were in favor of the CSURF area. On November 6, staff toured four Council members at both sites. Other Council members are visiting this week. Staff met with the Lee Martinez Neighborhood and there was opposition to the site at Martinez. Last night staff met with CSURF neighborhood and there is strong support for the Horticulture Center at CSURF. Jim distributed cost comparison. $577,000 is the difference in the amount available to install landscaping and gardens. Jim said we need to purchase the land and develop it with landscape and plantings. Focus is on dealing with the differential of the cost. Mike Powers reviewed the numbers on the cost comparison sheet. He referred to $280,000 (cost of the CSURF property) and the $300,000 from DDA towards the Martinez Site and the $577,000 difference. Mike Powers explained that if CSU's part in this has a value to the students, then it is a value to the University. Historically, the original cost of the project was $2,500,000. Council reduced the cost of the center to $2,000,000 before it was sent to ballot. Council recently passed a resolution that capped the Horticulture Center at $2,250,542. Comments were made by the Natural Resources Advisory Board at their last meeting that Building Community Choices money or other City funding should be considered. Mike further explained CSU is looking for a way to get under College Avenue to Old Fort Collins High. They want to put a tunnel under College to Old Fort College High. The High School Park could be used for CSU experimental gardens. Our goal is to get the CSURF site on an equal dollar footing with Lee Martinez site. Lance commented the Board can address their questions to Del and Lance as members of the Board and subcommittee or to staff. Tim said that we talked to CSU and worked up a draft intergovernmental agreement that describes their use of the Horticulture Center for their classes and some other activities. Dr. Wallner said their goal is to reach out beyond our student population which includes the master garden program. Marilyn Barnes asked about Center Avenue and questioned the construction of the Federal building and is that why Center Avenue will be constructed from Drake and Prospect and does the road need to be constructed because of that building? Kathleen replied that the Natural Resources Center will pay its portion and everyone who builds on the property will pay their Parks and Recreation Board Minute. November 18, 1998 Page 4 proportion of Center Avenue. CSURF will act as the developer and pay for the development up front. Rebecca asked about High School Park. What will be constructed on the east side of the high school? Will there be a garden built behind the school? Mike replied there are no plans for that area at this time, however we are hoping to continue to program that area and could enter into a lease for the recreational use. Janet Meisel added the Park Planning staff met with the neighborhood park residents this week and their concerns were about non-competitive sports usage in the park and that those could occur in the back of the school. Dean Hoag asked when Center Street will be completed? Tim replied in August 2000. Mary Ness asked what is the total cost of Center Avenue? Kathleen replied $2,000,000 to $3,000,000. Jessica replied that there is less money available at the CSURF site to plant. If we construct the Horticulture Center at the CSURF site, how would we afford the plantings? Lance distributed a copy of the Community Horticulture Site Selection Committee's recommendation. He also distributed a copy of the report from Don Rodriguez (Natural Resources Board Representative). Don's report entitled "Minority Report —Site Recommendation" states his recommendation of the Community Horticulture Center is at CSURF. However, he does not agree that Lee Martinez site should be selected if the CSURF site proves not to be viable. He stated that he does not believe that Lee Martinez Park is an appropriate site for the Center and that it presents a variety of environmental problems that make it undesirable. Marilyn Barnes said that the High School Park was donated and she said it must always be a park. Lance said that is correct and it would be kept in a park setting. Dean asked Lance to explain the partnership with the City and CSU. Lance said we have a draft intergovernmental agreement with CSU and City for maintenance and operation. The Master Gardeners program was outlined in the agreement. Dean asked if they (CSU) are willing to put in some money? Lance said CSU's contribution could come in the form of a reduction in the cost of the road or to purchase the land. What we are saying is if the finances are worked out, the CSURF site would outweigh the Lee Martinez site. If not, then we want to go back to the Lee Martinez site. The partnership with CSU might not be as valuable at Martinez Park. Jessica said the interest should be the same at either site. If the City purchases the land, it is no longer the University's land. The partnership should be the main goal. Del said the proximity would be the interest in CSU. The appealing aspect to CSU is the two site complex provides a place for complimentary gardens. Dean said we would pay CSU and what about a donation if they are so interested in the site. Lance said that is being negotiated. They are looking at this and it has been encouraging. Diane asked if we could sell the remainder of Lee Martinez to Natural Resources for a natural area. Mike said if it comes down to that we will bring that back to this Board. Mike doesn't want this to be turf issues. Selling the natural area of Lee Martinez is in the bottom tier of desirables. Paul questions 42 "The City should provide additional funding through Building Community Choices revenues or other sources to further reduce the project budget deficit and to ensure that a significant portion of the site can be developed." The Natural areas might be able to provide some money to fund some of this. Lance said that if we get too specific, it may be restricting ourselves. He believes that this project should be in the best interest of many entities. Diane Thies said she agrees with Don Rodriguez's comments that we shouldn't go back to Lee Martinez. Parks and Recreation Board Minutes • November 18, 1998 Page 5 Del said that we need to have full funding prior to construction. We would rather see the building and landscape being completed instead of a building, parking lot and no gardens. Marilyn says the Lee Martinez site has more valuable attributes. It has value to a lower income area and a thing of beauty to the downtown area. Del agrees that it would be a positive effect on the north side of town. Jessica referring to #1 "The price of the property, including land and street costs, must be reduced by a significant amount to make the project economically viable at CSURF. The asking price of $280,000 for the land and the $234,000 for the parcel's share of the cost of constructing Center Avenue needs to be reduced significantly by CSURF." She said if we pay the asking price, then CSU should pay for the development of the road. Diane said she thinks we need to look at other sites, however, her choice is CSURF at this time. Lance said the longer we wait the more it will cost us. We need to move on with this. Marilyn said that we need to state that we need to give the people a complete project and unless the differences in cost in the sites are significantly reduced, then CSURF should not be favored with only partial funding. Dean agreed with Marilyn. With equal funding Lance feels that CSURF is a better site if the funding is there. The partnership, the location with CSU, expansion at CSURF are all favorable. Look at the park, natural resources area and all those make that site a more desirable site if the funding is equal. Jessica said Center Avenue will become very busy. There will be expansion to the north with the convention center with the Holiday Inn. Nothing north of this site will be built on. Del agrees with Lance that with all things being equal the CSURF property would be the best. Environmentally it will be pleasing. We have to have enough money to build it. That is the foundation issue for him. Rebecca said the land to the south is available. Jessica said that the CSURF site has some beautiful aspects however if Lee Martinez site is chosen would CSU not be interested in that partnership. Dr. Steve Wallner said that a CSU partnership could exist at either site but geographically speaking would have advantages at the CSURF site. He said that the partnership would continue. Rebecca said that she would like to see the Martinez site cleaned up and beautification is in order and a need. It is an eye sore to the city at this time. Del agreed with Rebecca. Dean doesn't feel comfortable with the difference of the money. Jessica agrees with Dean. Del said we want to express that both these sites are viable, but we need to build it completely. Jessica said that if it is a partnership then it should be equal. Lance said that what the University would benefit from is what they are willing to contribute. Del said what we are looking at is the long-term benefits and not to have duplication of efforts. Marilyn said that the partnership should be long term. Paul Van Valkenburg made the following motion: The Board recommends to the City Council the Colorado State University Research Foundation (CSURF) property as the site for the new Horticulture Center on condition that the net amount of project funding remaining to establish the horticulture gardens and landscaping is equal to or greater than the amount of project funding available for these improvements if the project were developed on the Lee Martinez Park site; it being the Board's opinion that $575,000 less will be available for these improvements on the CSURF site, based (in part) on a price of $280,000 for CSURF (versus $227,500 for the Martinez site), street construction costs for Center Avenue of $234,000 and a $300,000 contribution from the Downtown Development Authority if Lee Martinez site is selected; with the Board recommending that the difference between the sites be eliminated through reduction in the acquisition and/or development costs of the CSURF site or through additional revenues being Parks and Recreation Board Minute., — November 18, 1998 Page 6 added to the project budget. If the financial difference between the sites cannot be eliminated, the Board recommends the Lee Martinez site for the Horticulture Center. It is the Board's conviction that the beauty and utility of the Horticulture Center will be unacceptably compromised if the CSURF property is selected without eliminating the financial difference. Both sites are viable sites. The motion was seconded by Rebecca Chavez, and the Board unanimously (9-0) recommends to the City Council the Colorado State University Research Foundation (CSURF) site for the construction of the Community Horticulture Center. Natural Area Buffer Zones Natural Resources Director Tom Shoemaker made a presentation to the Board on the Natural Area Buffer Zones. He first congratulated the Board on their process with the Horticulture Center. He reviewed the natural areas map indicating the inventory we presently have. We originally said that we would protect natural areas. With City Plan, staff reviewed the Land Use Code and modified the Code provisions. As of March 1997, the Land Use Code proposed revisions are considered semi-annually in response to issues from citizens, staff, advisory boards, interest groups, home builders, etc. The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed aspects of the Code with emphasis on the natural areas. Staff is planning on presenting this to Council on December 1. Craig Foreman said that the Park Planning Staff reviewed this and expressed some concern. This amendment to the Code applies to corridors with buffers around them. The Code as it stands now has buffer zones that should be 100 to 300 feet. Park Planning Staff was concerned about proposed buffer zones along Fossil Creek and Southwest Community Park and if we incorporate these buffers, land to build a park will be minimal. If there is a stream through the park, what about the buffer? Tom said it would have buffalo grass, natural area between that and the programmed area. These areas would be allowed for passive recreation for people to walk or enjoy the natural features. What about access to the stream? Tom replied, yes, those uses are acceptable. Craig Foreman said that Natural Resources Board and Planning and Zoning Board worked on this for a year and the Park Planning staff has been brought into this discussion in the last two weeks. One concern is that urban environment is moved to preservation. He said that the project has to fit environmentally, and asked where is the box that this fits in? It is a concern that we need the land and not the buffer as the developers need. Marry Heffernan said that some of our concerns have been corrected and both Tom Vosburg and Tom Shoemaker will do their best to address our concerns. It is a difficulty for staff when we are developing a community park as those projects are reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board (Neighborhood parks are not). Tom Shoemaker said that there was no intent to leave the Parks and Recreation staff out of the loop. This Code applies to all City projects. Diane Thies asked what was the definition of natural area? Tom replied that it has to have some natural features and habitats. Lance Freeman said at one time we had open spaces and then they became Natural Areas and at that point became more restrictive in use. Tom said the community values these lands and therefore are called Natural Areas. Del was concerned when the Horticulture Committee was reviewing the Parks and Recreation Board•utes • November 18, 1998 Page 7 Lee Martinez site, a map from Natural Resources stated that there would be buffer zones and no development could occur in those zones. Tom said yes, that is correct. Del says he has problems with the buffer zones next to the river. Water is a magnet and people like to be around water. If you put natural grasses in there, people are still going to the water and it will be a maintenance nightmare. People have a right to go to water and enforcing that to this degree is too extreme. Tom said you could put a recreational trail to that with natural areas along the water. This would provide a safe zone for the habitat. Craig said that this is set up for developers primarily. In a park we want the natural feature in the buffer zone. Paul Van Valkenburg said that it looks like every water feature is a natural area. What if we want to develop Fossil Creek and want to put a beach on the side of the reservoir? Tom said that could be accommodated. Marty Heffernan said that if there is a natural feature in a park, we have to protect and buffer it. Virgil asked when these regulations will be implemented? Tom said most of these regulations are in place and on December 1 staff will propose these changes to Council. Does this apply to park sites that have not been developed? Tom replied, yes. Virgil added it will force the City to purchase larger plots of land in order to accommodate these buffers. Diane asked if there has been public input? Tom said there has been huge public input in the City Plan process. Dean Hoag asked if these buffer zone standards have been incorporated or have they been in existence. He agrees with Virgil that we will have to buy more land for parks. Rebecca asked who is the final decision maker? Tom said the Planning and Zoning Board is the decision maker. Marilyn said that is not acceptable. Diane questioned page 6 (I) the Project shall be designed... Craig said using Southwest Community Park as an example, if we build the park exactly as the buffer plan mandates, we would lose parkland. Marilyn asked on Page 9 #3 could we take that out. Tom said you can recommend that, but he can't totally agree with that. Del said the Planning and Zoning Board has to live by the City's directives. We are giving the Planning and Zoning Board very inflexible guidelines. We need to give them more flexible guidelines or standards. Diane would like to see these as suggestions and not so strict. Lance asked what the impact would be if we review it for a month? Tom said it would be pulled out of the packet of items going to Council for review on December 1. Paul said our discomfort is that when we want to design a park, we want to go through the process and construct a park, and not have these variances in buffers. Diane added that this will drive up the cost of constructing a park. Del made an observation that the citizens need to have a voice. The majority of the people are not representative of not using these lands for passive recreational experiences. Our Board represents the parks and recreation users in Fort Collins. The Board would like staff to have some options. Marilyn said the staff needs to look at the people's perspective. Del said we are asking for flexibility. Parks and Recreation Board Minute - November 18, 1998 Page 8 The Board directed staff to look at their concerns and come back to them at the January meeting. On a motion by Marilyn Barns, seconded by Dean Hoag, the Board doesn't support the Natural Area Buffer Zones as presented tonight. The voted was unanimous (8-0). Jessica MacMillan left prior to the vote. Cottonwood Glen Neighborhood Park In June, Craig Foreman gave the Board an overview on this project at Drake Road/Overland Trail and Taft Hill, adjacent to Southwest Community Park. We shifted the 7 acres of neighborhood park from Southwest Community Park into Cottonwood Glen Neighborhood Park. This project has been reviewed by the Natural Resources Board and they accepted the plan except for one member who lives in Taft Acres. The neighborhood wanted to move the shelter and restroom and the Transportation Department said don't put any features in the areas where the right of way could be for Overland Road if in the future the road is constructed through this area. The neighborhood, Natural Resources Board, and staff recommend Conceptual Drawing #3. Del asked how these trails tie in with Pineridge Trail? Craig showed access points. On a motion by Marilyn Barnes, seconded by Rebecca Chavez, the Board voted unanimously (8-0) to accept Conceptual Drawing #3 for the Cottonwood Glen Park as presented by staff. Parks Rules and Regulations Virgil Taylor reviewed the Parks Rules and Regulations update. He explained that our current rules and regulations were adopted in 1988 and it's time to revise them. Virgil referred to a memo that was previously sent to the Board explaining the changes. Staff is scheduled to present this to the City Council on December 1. Marty Heffernan added that our attorney reviewed these changes and agrees with the changes to the Rules and Regulation. He further stated that staff didn't want to disallow activities in the parks. Sign/posting can be added to any area. Referring to D.1. Mary Ness questions why people who are working late (after 11:00 p.m.) can't ride their bikes home on the trail. Virgil replied that the police asked for this and would use selective enforcement. Mary feels that we are over regulating. Del Price agrees with Marv. Diane Thies made a motion to recommend adoption of the new Parks Rules and Regulations as presented except for D1. Del questioned on #14 why do we have horses 10 feet from the trail? Marty explained that we need to have enough room for the horses give the right of way. We don't encourage horses in the city, except for designated areas from Lee Martinez west. Del asked why we don't allow cross country skiing on the golf courses? Virgil explained that the snow fungus ruins the greens. Rebecca Chavez seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (8-0). 1999 Work Plan and Meeting Schedule Mike Powers reviewed the dates and list of items that was presented by staff. Diane added ADA compliance and would like to see a date attached; She further added Family Focused Recreation. Parks and Recreation Board#mutes • November 18, 1998 Page 9 Mike scratched the Gravel Study; and added Park impact fees; update on Sheldon Lake; and Land Use Code. The Board also added Lee Martinez beautification project. On a motion by Marilyn Barnes, seconded by Rebecca Chavez, the Board unanimously (8-0) voted to accept the Work Plan and Meeting Schedule as modified. Other Business • Lance Freeman requested an update on Sheldon Lake Project restoration. Janet Meisel -Burns will provide a report to the Board in their January packets. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 90a ckie Rael xExecutive Administrative Assistant Meeting Attendance Board Members Staff Guests Marilyn Barnes Rebecca Chavez Lance Freeman Dean Hoag Jessica MacMillan Mary Ness Del Price Diane Thies Paul VanValkenburg Tim Buchanan Janet Meisel -Burns Jim Clark Matt Day Craig Foreman Mike Powers Jackie Rael Virgil Taylor Kathleen Byington, CSURF Steve Wallner, CSU Jim Klett, CSU