Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Conservation And Stewardship Board - Minutes - 11/08/2006MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND CONSERVATION & STEWARDSHIP BOARD Regular Meeting 200 W. Mountain, Suite A November 8, 2006 For Reference: Bill Bertschy - 491-7377 Mayor Doug Hutchinson - 416-2154 John Stokes, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Bill Bertschy, Michelle Grooms, Vicky McLane, Greg Snyder, Linda Stanley, Karyl Ting Board Members Absent Greg Eckert, Michelle Brown, Paul Hudnut Staff Present Natural Resources Dent: Mark Sears, John Stokes. Judi Vos Utilities: Jim Hibbard, Marcia Hilmes-Robinson Guests CSU Students — Seth Anthony, Katie Goodwin, Wes Kemp, Nichole Kerr, Austin Tillack, Donald Tuttle Agenda Review John Stokes added an agenda item —Executive Session. Vicky McLane added an agenda tem — World Heritage Designation for Soapstone Public Comments No public comments. Review and Approval of Minutes McLane had a correction to the October 4, 2006 minutes: page two, third paragraph, third line should read "serial', not "cereal'. Linda Stanley moved to approve the October 4, 2006 minutes. Vicky McLane second the motion. The minutes were unanimously approved. Poudre River Floodplain Regulations Jim Hibbard, City of Fort Collins Utilities Department, and Marcia Hilmes-Robinson, City of Fort Collins Floodplain Administrator were presenters. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board November 8, 2006 Page 2 of 8 • Hibbard: We will visit various Boards and Commissions that may have input on the Poudre River Floodplain regulations. With regards to storm water, we are in the business of managing risk. So the overall perspective we have is balancing risk with regulations, which is a policy decision, and that is why we will also go to City Council Study Session later in November. Hibbard spoke to the four maps included in the packet to the Board. Hibbard: The primarily reason for this presentation is to give the Board an idea and better understanding in regards to the Floodplain regulations. We are also interested in the Board's opinions about what the impact may or may not be on lands owned by the City. Most of the regulations have to do with development and not land conservation; as a result there may not be many issues for the Board to address. Marcia Hilmes-Robinson gave a background summary to the Board: Hilmes-Robinson: We were asked by the elected officials, as part of the adoption of the East Mulberry Corridor Plan, to review the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations. Regulations will not match between Latimer County and the City of Fort Collins because Latimer County regulates more on a land -use zoning, and the City of Fort Collins uses the regulatory approach. Hilmes-Robinson: spoke to the Board about the proposed Floodplain Regulation changes for the Poudre River discussing: • Will regulations match? • 100-year and 500-year flood probability • Floodway • Current floodway regulations - Proposed changes and the effect of change • Floodway modification • Current floodway modification regulations - Proposed change and effect of change • Current product corridor regulations for the City of Fort Collins and Latimer County - Proposed change and effect of change • Freeboard level and regulations - Proposed change and effect of change • Dry land access and regulations - Proposed change and effect of change • Critical facilities • Current regulations for critical facilities in the 100-year and 500- year floodplain. - Proposed change and effect of change with alternative options Land Conservation & Stewardship Board November 8, 2006 Page 3 of 8 • Letter of map revision based on LOMR-fill, giving LOMR-fill examples and regulations - Proposed change and effect of change • Variances to regulations • What if nothing is done? • Staff recommended minimum changes • Poudre River floodplain regulations public outreach - NRAB — Oct. 18 - Water Board — Oct 26 - Land Conservation and Stewardship Board — November 8 - P&Z Work Session —November 13, 2006 - Open House at Lincoln Center — November 14 (Joint Larimer County and City of Fort Collins) - NRAB — November 15 - Council Work Session — November 28 - Council 1st. Reading —January 16 (tentative) Hilmes-Robinson asked for questions from the Board. • Ting: Regarding the private in -holdings on the public land map when you look at the small areas that will be going to the half foot regulations, are they developable land? • Hibbard: Some of them are and some of them are not. We are talking about a strip of land going through the Lincoln Greens golf course, which will be slightly more developable. Secondly, would be a strip of land on the South side of Mulberry, and the third primary area is probably at I-25 and Harmony. These are the areas that are developable land. • Stokes: I would like to go back to the Bylaws of this Board, and why the Board was established. There is a very direct relationship between the Board and the Natural Areas. The Board wasn't construed to look at, for example, environmental impacts that would occur beyond a Natural Area. • Bertschy: The Natural Resource Advisory Board (NRAB) is looking at this also. • Stokes: The NRAB is the Board that has the broader environmental charter and would be looking at environmental impacts beyond Natural Areas. • Bertschy: The concern I have would be the Natural Areas that would be impacted by this, do we change the ability for public access in anyway for better or worse, by the changes of these regulations? • Stokes: As I understand it, for public facilities we are able to build within the floodway, where as the private individual would not be able to do any construction. • Hilmes-Robinson: What would be easier is that in some cases you may not have to do so much analysis to prove that you are not causing a rise. If you reduce the floodway area you've reduce the Product 6 Corridor area. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board November 8, 2006 Page 4 of 8 • Bertschy: When a developer wants to develop a parcel adjacent to open space we own, do they get credit in their mitigation for the amount of water that will spread out on our land as opposed to the flood flow through their land. • Hibbard: No. • Stokes: From what I understand they would have to get an easement. • Bertschy: I am going to suggest to the Board that we not take action at this time and let the public process happen, and then weigh in. Unless someone is prepared to make a motion I think we should take action at the December meeting. • Hibbard: We can come back to this Board for the December meeting and discuss what we heard from City Council, and from the Open House. At that time we can see if that will change any recommendations. • Stanley: I worry about not giving something to Council before their work session. • McLane: I would like a clearer understanding as to why this is before this Board. I think we are straying a little from what this Board is charged with, and we need to be careful of that. • Hilmes-Robinson: What others do could impact your property over time. One, it might relate to how you manage the property. From the other side, we might get a little more rise than we would like because of the added fill, and that could impact your property. • McLane: I would like a staff recommendation on this. • Stokes: I went to Rick Bachand and Karen Manci the Natural Areas Sr. Environmental Planners, and although any activity through the river corridor has some effect on us we thought the impact would be very minimal to the Natural Areas. Keep in mind that we are talking about extreme flood events. • Grooms: I'm struggling because I feel like if all is well in the Natural Areas, all we are adding is risk by extending boundaries. • Bertschy: I would like to see a map that shows the exact change by elimination of Product 6 Corridor. If we need to make a recommendation it would be difficult to craft in 2 hours. I think we should bring this discussion back to a future meeting. • Stokes: Jim showed me a copy of our municipal code and regulations applying to people who are doing development in a flood plain. Those criteria would be adopted by the County. There are some situations on the river, in the County in the urban growth area where we have seen very bad practices by private land owners, and nothing is happening about that. If the county will adopt those same code provisions, in my view, that would really help. Currently those landowners have no real requirement on them to pay attention to regulations. • Stanley: I would like to make a recommendation on at least alternative #1 and #2. Linda Stanley made a motion. Motion to support staff proposal for minimum changes, but that Council should consider environmental impacts evaluations required to be given full consideration as recommended to staff by the County under floodway modifications. We recommend Alternative 2 under the critical facilities flood center. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board November 8, 2006 Page 5 of 8 Michelle second. It was approved by all with the exception of one. McLane: I oppose voting for this motion because, I feel, we do not have the information from the County that we need on how many properties would be affected, how many people's livelihoods would be affected, etc. I feel uncomfortable voting for what I don't understand, and when I don't know what the implications are. Downtown River District Design Project - Kathleen Bracke Bracke: I'm Kathleen Bracke with the City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning office, and we have been working with the Downtown Development Authority over the last year to develop the Downtown River District Design Project. At this point we are doing public outreach about feedback on the design they have come up with so far. Ideas have been developed based on feedback from various groups over the last several months. We've talked with the Downtown Development Authority, Downtown Business Association, Chamber of Commerce, and various other City Boards and Commissions. In Kathleen Bracke`s presentation to the Board she spoke about: • Design improvements will address: - Streetscape - Traffic circulation, capacity and safety — including auto, pedestrian and bicycle - Parking — on and off street - Utilities — storm water, waste water - Linkage with Downtown and surrounding areas - History of the River District area Project schedule —Mid 2005 through Spring 2007 Draft alternatives - Willow street - Linden Street - Lincoln Avenue - Jefferson Street/SH14 - Intersections - Streetscape concepts - Parking - Transit Next steps - Select preferred alternatives — September through October 2006 - Refine alternative design — November 2006 through January 2007 - Finalize designs, cost estimates and priorities — February through March 2007 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board November 8, 2006 Page 6 of 8 Bracke gave the Board background information regarding: • The streetscape concept • Project respects to the Poudre River • Poudre River enhancement project • LUC — River Downtown redevelopment district • Poudre River floodplain map • Snyder: Regarding Willow Street, which is a commercial area, what will you do regarding the vehicular truck traffic? As long as the feed mill is operating you'll always have large truck traffic. • Bracke: On all of the streets we are looking at all of the designs that would accommodate truck traffic, because as the area transitions over time there will always be a need for truck traffic in a business area. • Snyder: Concerning the Mill Race, what lengths were you anticipating building, and what do you have as an anticipated business frontage that will be facing the Mill Race? • Bracke: What we are working on at this time are the concept designs for each street, and then as we progress over the next few months we'll be developing the detailed design plans, and also the recommended implementation program for that. There may be features like the Mill Race, that can't be built in pieces as an area develops or as buildings transition. That may be the type of feature that gets added later on as the sideway gets developed and as the frontage of those building are set. • Snyder: Would that be paid for in the development cost or by City of Fort Collins funds? • Bracke: Part of the implementation program will list not only the cost of various street design concepts, but will also provide cost of recommended financing tools/sources. There are ways to fund it through capital projects, phase through development, and the Downtown Development Authority is another potential funding partner. • McLane: Regarding Jefferson Street/SH14, is CDOT okay with dropping that road to two lanes? • Bracke: They are being fair and open-minded; their issues are capacity and safety. We need to take as much feedback as we can to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), because they really want to know the community's preferences. The Downtown Development Authority and the Downtown Business Association as well as the Transportation Board felt compelled to write a letter to CDOT saying that they agree with the two lane alternative, and also mentioned that they liked the round -about intersection. Bracke mentioned that whatever treatments are done, they are trying to reflect back to the history of the area, making sure they go back to the industrial history; this would be unique to the other parts of Downtown. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board November 8, 2006 Page 7 of 8 Collective Memos Discussion • Bertschy: Collective memos discussion prompted out of our one memo written, to date, to Council. The collective memo discussion would include how we generate them; how we make sure that it reflects our opinion, if it gives council enough information and our best advice. I do not want to take soul responsibility for the memos, as they would need to be reflective of the Board's expressions. • Stokes: I am staff liaison to the Natural Resource Advisory Board (NRAB), and the chair or the vice -chair (if the chair could not do it) would typically draft the memo and then distribute them by email, getting feedback from the Board to make sure that they were expressing the view of the Board. The memo would then go to Council. There were times when I was called upon to draft a memo and needed to follow this procedure. • Bertschy: It is important to include the minutes, or excerpt from the minutes that pertain to the memo, and it's important that Council read both the minutes and the memo. Stokes: There may be times when the minutes may not be approved by the Board on time to send to Council. For those circumstances a draft excerpt of the minutes can be sent with permission from Council. Announcements • Bertschy: As you know Paul Hudnut has resigned. This open position will need to be filled at a later date. Discussion and Updates • Bertschy: If any of us feels so compelled to contact a council member, make sure they know that you are speaking as an individual, not on behalf of the Board, as that is not fair to the rest of the Board not being afforded the opportunity to have the same discussion. When the Board has an item to add to the agenda please contact the chair or John Stokes, and we will communicate to add those items to that month's agenda if there is time, or it will go to the following month's agenda if possible. • Stanley: I would like to have Red Fox Meadows, the storm water issue, and under grounding the power lines along Shields, as a future agenda items. • McLane: At our October meeting Chris Koziol talked to us about the possibility of considering the Soapstone Property as a World Heritage site. I have since talked with Chris and he feels that CSU has a fair number of resources to contribute. What I'd like to do is work with Chris, if the Board would agree, and come up with a possible proposal. The application form is out, the National Park Services is interested, and perhaps we can do a symposium with CSU. I feel it is an unusual opportunity as there are no cultural landscapes in the United States on the World Heritage list. Chris would like to work with Red Mountain, so we may be working with the County as well, and then the National Association of Interpreters (NAI). I would like to explore this further at our December meeting and come up with more concrete ideas and proposals. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board November 8, 2006 Page 8 of 8 • Stokes: Vicky I'd like to work with you, and I think it's important for staff to be involved. I'd like to go ahead a follow-up with Chris Koziol and others at CSU and then report back to the Board. I think the major thing to do right -a -way is to contact Parks Service as they can take you through due process. I can do that. • Snyder: I would like to see the possible negative impacts of Soapstone being approved as a World Heritage site. As I brought up when Chris was here, due to the depth that the artifacts are, it would be a disservice to make it off limits to future use by citizens, archeologists etc. • Bertschy: John would you like to do the Executive Session? • Stokes: No, we will discuss that at the next meeting. I would like to mention some agenda items for our December meeting: - Work Plan — I will get a draft over to you Bill - Wildlife Management Plan, which needs to be to Council in January, and I will also take that to the Natural Resources Board. - Two other possible items are: Soapstone and the Executive Session • Sears: As a follow-up to the memo that was in your packet regarding the Foothills Natural Areas Management Plan Update, there will be trail changes at Maxwell, and Andrijeski. We've drafted location concepts for making trail connections to the Poudre River Trail, the Foothills Trail and nearby neighborhoods. Also, in working with Loveland, they would like to connect their version of the prairie ridge to Coyote Ridge. Would you all want us to bring back the update on the final version of the management plan, which may be in January? • Stanley: yes. • Bertschy: The next meeting will be on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 at 6 p.m. Meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Submitted by Geri Kidawski Administrative Secretary