Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 06/04/2003MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE June 4, 2003 For Reference: Randy Fischer, NRAB Chair - 226-5383 Eric Hamrick, Council Liaison - 225-2343 John Stokes, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Kelly Ohlson, Nate Donovan, Linda Knowlton, Don Rodriguez, Steve Ryder, Randy Fischer Board Members Absent Phil Murphy, Arvind Panjabi, Sam Otero Staff Present Natural Resources Dent: Mark Sears, Terry Klahn Advance Planning: Ken Waido Stormwater Utilities: Jim Hibbard, Matt Fater, Bob Smith, Kevin McBride, Susan Hayes Attornev's Office: Steve Roy Guests Jerry Kaltenhauser, Citizen Lance Freeman, Parks & Recreation Board David May, Chamber of Commerce Eric Hamrick, Council Liaison Agenda Review • Fischer: I don't know if we want to add new items to the agenda. I've asked that staff not spring things on us unless it's real urgent. • Sears: I do feel it's urgent. The change was inadvertent when other aspects were changed. Either we don't issue the permits, or we do it illegally. It puts us in an awkward position. The regulations were changed inadvertently. • Fischer: We need to get things in the packet so we have time to review them. • Ohlson: I have a couple things under new business • Donovan: I figured I was responsible for chairing this meeting, so I talked with the City Attorney. The changes are minor. But, I was a little surprised when we got the memo yesterday morning. • Knowlton: I think we should put the approval of minutes early, and not wait till 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. Natural Resources Advisory Board June 4, 2003 Page 2 of 10 • Ohlson: I understand where you're coming from, but sometimes it takes 30 seconds and sometimes it takes 12 minutes. I think we should do them after Jim Hibbard and before Mark's natural areas items. • Fischer: I agree with Kelly. We don't want to tie up our guests with minutes. Nate Donovan read a "resolution" honoring Don Rodriguez's service to the Natural Resources Advisory Board. Donovan made a motion approving the resolution that was seconded by Steve Ryder and unanimously approved. Rodriguez said this has been a highlight for his professional life and a wonderful experience. His classroom efforts were enriched and he learned a lot. It's been a privilege to work with all of you. Draft Ordinance, Steve Roy Roy said the ordinance is to expand the functions of the board to include two things, the ability to advise Council on legislative matters including annexations, which is not much of a reach. The other is to make recommendations to the P&Z Board. The AQAB recommended adoption of the ordinance as it, but there was discussion of narrowing the field. If you think that expanding the duties and functions of the board might be a good idea, we can make changes. One of the comments if concern about slowing down the development review process. I discussed with P&Z the possibilities of having those boards plugged into the existing process. • Knowlton: How much additional time would be required from this board to carry out these additional duties? • Roy: It could add as much or as little as you choose. It depends if you're being selective, or looking at all of them, and the process developed to formulate a recommendation. The challenge is for you to be informed in a timely fashion. • Ohlson: I'm not looking to add more duties, but it will be better once we have two boards. The whole In -Situ process would have been better if we would have weighed in. This doesn't have to add one day to the development review process. • Knowlton: Do you favor the suggestion of a joint meeting? • Ohlson: I haven't thought the process questions through yet. I would like to get the language, I'm getting phone calls and media calls. • Fischer: We were told three or four years ago that we couldn't comment on specific development proposals. Would this remedy that? Would we be covered and protected from civil law suits? • Roy: Yes. It wouldn't prevent the board from being sued, but the City would pay the cost of defending the boards, and the cost of any judgment. • Ohlson: The board didn't initiate this. • Roy: Individuals members of the board are free to go today, as long as you make it clear you're expressing a personal opinion. That's the difference this would make. • Donovan: That's the beauty of making laws. We can institutionalize things that might be a good idea. I like the language on the 2"a part being broader. We can narrow it after a period of time if it's unwieldy. I don't imagine we'll make recommendations on very many things. I felt out of the loop on this proposal. I Natural Resources Advisory Board June 4, 2003 Page 3 of 10 didn't know this was in the process until it blew up and was 80% done. I don't think this will increase our workload substantially. It also might help push along the idea of trying to split some functions off into a separate board. There's been discussion about trying to deal with the functions of the NRAB and the AQAB. I think it's a good idea to keep those discussions going. I thought Steve was coming to talk about the ordinance on executive sessions of the City Council on land acquisition. • Roy: If you chose to limit the items you want to comment on it could be done in two ways, narrow the language of the ordinance itself, or take the broad wording and as a board develop some guidelines. • Rodriguez: I'm sensitive to Linda's concerns, but there should be a way to incorporate this board's concerns, and make recommendations to P&Z. • Ohlson: We wouldn't want to go to the well too often. We want to be very selective so as not to be dismissed. I'm not worried there will be dozens a year. • Fischer: I was frustrated that we couldn't weigh in on the In -Situ thing. • Knowlton: If we support this, and Council adopts it, we'll have to have procedures. How will we identify and assess the issues we will weigh in on? There will have to be some process. • Fischer: My opinion is that would have to come from this board. We set our own agendas. This accentuates the need for the new board, the Open Lands Board. The NRAB spends so much time dealing with open lands and natural areas issues. Once that part of our scope of work belongs to another board, we'll have more time to focus on the other environmental issues that we would like to deal with. • Ohlson: A hot issue is the Lifestyles Center. In the big picture of things it's a major issue, but it's not one we would get involved in. It's not a major natural resource issue. • Knowlton: We'll need to have procedures and criteria, and decide what we'll look at. • Fischer: I prefer the broader language. • Hamrick: If you prefer the broader language I would suggest definite criteria to go along. Council will look for some sort of definition. • Ohlson: We just said we don't believe that's wise, we don't have that level of wisdom yet. • Hamrick: Some members of Council will be uncomfortable without that kind of definition. • Roy: If there's a motion to support the ordinance you could add a cover memo that indicates the intent to be selective, and include language about the kinds of things that might be of particular interest, and why you think there may be a relatively small number of items in which you might become involved. I believe there may be a study session in early Fall. • Fischer: We have time for further discussion. • Roy: I'd be glad to come back before it goes to Council. • Ohlson: David May, CEO of the Chamber of Commerce would like to comment on this issue. • May: My quotes in this mornings paper were right on the mark. I feel this is more government, and adds time to the development review process. One of the issues we Natural Resources Advisory Board June 4, 2003 Page 4 of 10 look at is; is this already covered. Most of the concerns are covered already. This is adding more government to the process, that's not needed. • Ohlson: We're not chomping at the bit to jump into P&Z issues. The discussion will be around how we will limit it. A process can be developed that will not add one day to the process. • May: I understand the good work you do, and your good intentions. We simply don't agree on this being good government. • Ohlson: Most of the board didn't know this was coming forward. We didn't initiate this. • Donovan: As we consider this, there needs to be more communication about the pros and cons of doing this, rather than less communication. I'm committed to how this can work so that on particular projects it can be better for business and the economy, and so we don't have train wrecks. We can fulfill our roles and duties so it can be better. • Roy: One of the things that need to be explored is if there's a way to accommodate input from these boards without lengthening the process, and making it more costly. I'm not sure our office is in a position to figure out what that would be. • Ohlson: I don't see why this should add a dime in the long run. • Fischer: Whose responsibility is it to figure out how the process would work? • Roy: I'll talk to John Fischbach to see if there are members of staff who could work on it. • Donovan: I'd be happy to be the board person who works on it. • Knowlton: I felt blindsided this morning. If the AQAB knew about it, why didn't we know about it. • Ohlson: I met with a citizen about five days ago who let me know about it. • Fischer: I think it would be helpful for the board to say if we approve the draft with broad language we'll come up with specific criteria. • Donovan: This doesn't go to Council for a little while. I don't feel comfortable getting something going on the fly. • Fischer: The thing to do is to summarize in writing what we heard here tonight. It would be nice if we could communicate with P&Z before their meeting tomorrow night. • Ohlson: Steve, is there any chance you'd give them a verbal summary of what you heard? • Roy: I don't know if that will be as effective as hearing it from you, but I'm willing to. I can draft something from what I've heard and send it out to see if it meets with your approval. • Knowlton: Will you include language that we're interested in not delaying or slowing the development review process. • Ohison: If the P&Z Board had heard this discussion their anxiety level would be lessened. • Donovan: As far as executive sessions for Council, instead of just discussing value estimates and strategy, anything related can be discussed. Natural Resources Advisory Board June 4, 2003 Page 5 of 10 • Fischer: I think that was a mistake. It is actually contrary to open public meetings. I cant really think of an instance you couldn't go to Council and discuss openly anything pertaining to a land acquisition. The City Attorney in Boulder said they don't go into executive session about anything. • Roy: They have a lot of sidebars • Fischer: I'm concerned this has the potential to remove us from the process. We may never know what transpired. It's bad public policy, and it's especially bad for this board. • Roy: The rationale for the City is to try to negotiate the best deal for the City. • Donovan: I don't believe Council will consider land acquisitions in executive sessions before this board has discussed them. I don't think it will happen at Council level before we know about it. I-25 Subarea Plan, Ken Waido Ken Waido provided a brief summary of the I-25 Subarea Plan. • Fischer: What has changed since the last time we saw this? • Waido: The Resource Recovery Farm was up in the air, and the corner of Vine and I- 25. • Ohlson: To this point, what don't you like about the way this is shaping up? • Waido: Personally, I think we're missing some opportunities here. I would prefer to see higher density housing to offer the potential of more people to work and live . City Plan talks about areas where people can live, work and shop. The people who work out there wont be living at two dwelling units per acre. These people will be traveling out of this corridor for their work. This plan sets up a transition from intense corridor of commercial and large lot developments. There's a gradation in terms of density and intensity. • Knowlton: What happens if the subarea plan is not approved? • Waido: A lot of it is already zoned, and probably not the way you'd like. The design guidelines are critical. We have some annexations pending that have been on hold. • Waido: We missed an opportunity to not amend the GMA and set up another area of receiving for TDU's, and preserve additional land through that technique to create the separator between Fort Collins and Wellington. • Ohlson: Will Council vote on this before or after the design criteria have been presented? • Waido: When it gets to Council on July 15, our intent is to have a resolution adopting the plan, and an ordinance adopting the design guidelines. Ken Waido will provide an updated map for everyone on the board. • Fischer: Does this subarea plan incorporate County Road 5 as a major arterial? • Waido: In talking to Mark we were talking about bringing a master street plan amendment as part of this subarea plan. We're not going to do that, we'll leave that for the master street plan adoption. • Fischer: I continually wonder how we can propose new roads, but we can't pass a transportation measure in Fort Collins to patch the pot holes. Natural Resources Advisory Board June 4, 2003 Page 6of10 • Waido: These roads are development related. • Waido: The Transportation Board voted 6/0 to not approve the plan. The AQAB voted 3/l/l/ not to support, but I didn't get a good sense of why. There was good discussion on both side • Ohlson: Why couldn't the City land bank out there? • Waido: We're considering buying 17 acres for affordable housing. • Fischer: We will take action and have a recommendation at our July 2 meeting. Boxelder Creek & Cooper Slough Master Drainage Plans, Jim Hibbard Jim Hibbard said we've pretty much gone through all of the philosophy and have gotten into specific floodplains. The next step is to talk about capital projects we're proposing. Ohlson: Based on the April 2 minutes you're preparing executive summaries. Hibbard: It's in the works. We have summaries that we used in the open houses. They're on the website, it's not the document we'll be taking to Council. These master plans are a high altitude look, they don't get into detailed design. We won't get into detail until the project is in the two year budget. We're committed to incorporate water and habitat features as a part of it. Hibbard: As far the Boxelder creek on the east side of the interstate, we're not finished. We do have flood plain regs for the upper part, we're not proposing any projects or solutions on how to mitigate. There's the complexity of regional issues, and the land use issues. On the Cooper Slough, and the lower Boxelder Creek we will have some projects. We're not proposing anything on the east side of the interstate. • Smith: As far as the characteristics of preserving Boxelder, and what does no development in the flood plain mean, we don't have the answer. It's a question we'd like answered before we go to Council. • Hayes: Our focus is to solve problems at I-25 and Mulberry. There's insufficient capacity, it's spilling over Mulberry. • Ohlson: Are these things net washes, net losses, or net gains environmentally? • Hayes: Probably net washes, we will enhance along Boxelder if possible. • Hibbard: A lot of the facilities that Susan talked about are in the County because the plan was developed jointly. They propose to take their plan to the County Commissioners. There is somewhere in the neighborhood of $15 million in improvements that may or may not be built. • Donovan: If it's annexed into the City, will there need to be significant upgrades of infrastructure, and who pays for that? • Hibbard: Essentially that's what part of this is, upgrading deficient structures. At the time of annexation that would be a question. My comment would be that at the time annexation would be considered those questions would have to be carefully studied, the same way you would study the police department, stormwater and parks and recreation. • Donovan: When it's served by the special districts it would stay with the districts. There's not a requirement to upgrade to municipal standards. Natural Resources Advisory Board June 4, 2003 Page 7 of 10 • Smith: That wouldn't change. • Donovon: If a development goes in, what is the impact of that development on the ability of Boxelder Sanitation to serve it? At what point does the City fix a problem? • Hibbard: Unless it's in the City there's no obligation. They have their own master plan, there's no reason to think they wont be able to service it. • Fischer: They've operated without a permit for years. There's controversy of if their treatment process is capable of meeting new standards. I question their ability to handle any new development in the area. • Hibbard: That's between them and the State Health Department. • Fischer: Why would we do these improvements? Is it mainly to protect that little development? • Fater: It would protect about 75 structures. • Hibbard: Council has asked us to look at a plan that provides a lower level of protection. We have done that. When we go to Council they could say this plan is too expensive and they want to do something less. The plan is based upon a financing plan that is based on yet to be approved rate increases. • Smith: The $200 million isn't just flood control. It includes bridges and wetland projects. It also includes the County projects. • Ohlson: It's important for the board to realize that on the canal importation project in many cases it's not about tragedies like the mobile home park. In most cases it's about water in basements. • Hibbard: I don't necessarily agree, this plan isn't about trying to keep every basement dry. Council gave direction to provide the whole jurisdiction with 100-year protection when cost effective to do so. That's the policy we prepared. • Ohlson: How did it come back for the 50-year protection? • Hayes: Roughly about $120 million, instead of $200 million. We'd have over 1100 structures damaged. • Fischer: What happens in the case of the Boxelder drainage when there's no adopted drainage master plan? The Advance Planning staff is planning to allow all sorts of development. • Hibbard: We're not in the business of making undeveloped land developable. We don't want to invest a lot of money out there. A lot of that relates to the County. It's going to take more study to determine the mitigation related to site specific things. • Smith: The master plan will tell you how to solve problems in existing areas. The flood plain regulations deal with developed areas, and say you can't develop in a flood plain unless you do this and that. The two documents work hand in hand. • Hayes: We would encourage developers to reduce the flood plain the wisest way. • Smith: Where would you like to go from here? • Hibbard: I had thought we'd ask for your recommendation. That doesn't mean you have to do that. You might feel more comfortable passing comments, that's up to you. • Ohlson: I see us going forward with comments, suggestions and ideas. • Ohlson: Council had a retreat. Staff sent a memo of staff recommendations to consider, including reconsidering the rainfall standards. Is that something you're aware of, and do you support it? Natural Resources Advisory Board June 4, 2003 Page 8 of 10 Hibbard? We feel we've defined the 100-year storm as accurately as we can. So far we haven't heard a lot of support for providing the lower level of protection. Generally speaking, most of the feedback has not been this is too expensive, but when can you build it? Fischer: We'll get back to you on our next step. As chair, I'll work with you to get tied into the rest of the basins. Approval of Minutes March 5, 2003 — The minutes of the March 5, 2003 meeting were unanimously approved. March 26, 2003 — The minutes of the March 26, 2003 meeting were unanimously approved. April 2, 2003 — With the following changes, the minutes of the April 2, 2003 meeting were unanimously approved: -Page 2, 1" bullet: Change `rural land use is an abomination" to the rural land use process is an ...." -Page 2, middle of page: Change "I'd rather have spent the money in open lands areas" to I'd rather have spent the money in other open land areas" Nate Donovan said we need to figure out a process to go from board approval of some sort of recommendation and how that translates into a written recommendation. I don't think the Community Separators final product was as effective as it could be. I'm not comfortable voting yes on a recommendation if I haven't seen the memo. Let's get that on the schedule to talk about . April 16, 2003 — The minutes of the April 16, 2003 meeting were unanimously approved. May 7, 2003 — The minutes of the May 7, 2003 meeting were unanimously approved. Natural Area items Huntington Hills West Subdivision, Tract A: (adjacent to Prairie Dog Meadows Natural Area) Sears said the board reviewed a land donation, but couldn't take action at the last meeting because there was not a quorum. Carrie Daggett asked if we could ask for official approval tonight. There is a draft memo included in your packet. Kelly Ohlson made the following motion: Move that the NRAB authorize the acceptance of the donation of 1.54 acres at Huntington Hills West Subdivision, Tract A. The motion was seconded by Nate Donovan and unanimously approved. Regulation Changes: Sears said the proposed changes are important. They were inadvertently changed, and makes it illegal to allow vehicles in a natural area without a permit • Fischer: I want to make it very clear it's not acceptable to email us something a day or less before a meeting, and expect us to be able to digest it. I was out of town and unable to get to the email in a timely fashion. • Sears: We felt like in five to ten minutes we could give you all of the information necessary. Natural Resources Advisory Board June 4, 2003 Page 9of10 • Fischer: I'm cursed with an overactive mind. I have to see this stuff. I sit on another board, and we're asked to take action on important stuff without ample time to review. It's unacceptable, this is important stuff. • Ohlson: Randy's issues are valid. But, we should move forward on this. We've sent a message to staff. • Knowlton: They could take it to Council without our recommendation. • Sears: We could, but it would be a red flag to Council. • Donovan: I agree with Randy and Kelly, things sometimes move faster than we can get information. I burned up a couple hours before being able to support it. Nate Donovan made the following motion: Move that the NRAB support Council approval of the proposed code changes to Chanter 3 Natural Areas. as nronosed by staff. The motion was seconded by Kelly Ohlson, and passed with five votes in favor (Kelly Ohlson, Nate Donovan, Linda Knowlton, Don Rodriguez, Steve Ryder), and one vote opposed (Randy Fischer). Fischer said he could not vote in favor of the proposed changes until he had an opportunity to review the wording. Updates • Sears: There had been concern about the earth work and trees being removed at the horticulture center.. Doug Moore went out and said things seem fine. I went out and met with the project manager and everything is being done according to plans. The trees removed were non -natives. • Ohlson: If there's appropriate funding that can come from the natural areas program I would like to see that discussed at the appropriate level. • Rodriguez: We've talked about natural areas money to go toward native grass and vegetation propagation. • Sears: That's an idea that has been floated around. I hope we can do that. I told them this morning we're willing to help out more. We have the expertise on staff to go in and help restore that 100' buffer on either side of Spring Creek • Sears: Two hourly natural area technicians will be converted to permanent. We've hired a second seasonal ranger position. He'll work 10-20 hours a week. There's an hourly environmental planner position, filled with a lady from the seasonal staff, Rachel Steeves. • Sears: We're working in the focus areas 2 and 3. • Sears: We closed on Indian Creek on the Friday. There was a huge effort by the County, in court for 3 days. Other Business • Ohlson: Have you been monitoring Cathy Fromme Prairie? I've never seen Lory Park look greener. But there's no planting in Cathy Fromme Prairie. I'm not buying that they did a good job the first time. • Sears: We were there when they did it the first time. Matt Parker was out there the entire time. They did a phenomenal job, it looked good through June of last year. It Natural Resources Advisory Board June 4, 2003 Page 10 of 10 all died off. We reseeded, we'll have to wait and see. We've been pointing to it as an example of how difficult restoration is. • Ohslon. Has the County fixed their mess up that they promised to fix? • Sears: I've not heard back, I'm assuming it was all fixed. Future Agenda Items July 2, 2003: Fossil Creek Regional Open Space Prelim Development Plan August 6, 2003: Water Supply & Demand Mgmt Update Electric Conservation Strategic Plan, Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.