Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Conservation And Stewardship Board - Minutes - 10/10/2007MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND CONSERVATION & STEWARDSHIP BOARD Regular Meeting 200 W. Mountain, Suite A October 10, 2007 DATE: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 LOCATION: 200 W. Mountain Avenue, Suite A TIME: 6:00 p.m. For Reference: Linda Stanley - 493-7225 Mayor Doug Hutchinson - 416-2154 John Stokes, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Raymond Boyd, Trudy Haines, Vicky McLane, Linda Stanley, Dave Theobold, Board Members Excused Greg Eckert, Michelle Grooms, Karyl Ting Council Liaison Mayor, Doug Hutchinson Staff Present Natural Resources / Natural Areas Department: Geri Kidawski, Mark Sears, John Stokes Guests Dana Leavitt, Environmental Planner, City of Fort Collins Pete Wray, Senior Planner, City of Fort Collins Craig Foreman, Manager Park Planning, City of Fort Collins Bruce Hendee, BHA Design Marc -Andre Levesque, BHA Design Russ Hackenstaff, Turnkey, LLC Public Comments Agenda Review Review and Approval of Minutes • Stanley: Minutes from the September meeting will be approved at the November meeting. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board October 10, 2007 Page 2 of 11 I-25 and Highway 392 Interchange Wray: I would like to talk about the Natural Areas and buffers associated with the engineering project. The City of Fort Collins and the Town of Windsor entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). The purpose of this IGA includes the need to develop a comprehensive Plan for design and funding interchange improvements. Fort Collins and Windsor have joined together to lead this study. We partnered with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) who partially helped us fund the cost for developing the plan over this past year. We've also worked with Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), area property owners, City of Fort Collins and Larimer County staff. As part of this process we are looking at funding strategies for coming up with the needed revenues to pay for the complete reconstruction of the interchange, which is estimated to be 22 million, bonded over a twenty year time frame. These are some of the key points we were looking at while developing the plan. o Plan Purpose —Key Objectives o Plan process Wray: In addition to the plan participants all ready mentioned, our staff has worked with representatives of the Division of Wildlife, to look at the critical resource area particularly on the West side of the interchange and around Fossil Creek reservoir area. o Existing Conditions • Interchange currently operating at a falling level of service • Area largely undeveloped • Falling interchange reduces development potential • Regionally important natural resources and open space close by ■ Area serves as gateway to Windsor, southern Fort Collins ■ Expected to be a regional transit hub ■ The Corridor Activity Center (CAC) is the area immediately surrounding the interchange and where the project will have the greatest impact. (Wray pointed this area out on a map) o North I-25 Environment Impact Statement ■ A key document considered was the North I-25 Draft EIS. Current Draft Alternative under consideration shows a tight diamond interchange and a potential Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) station at the interchange (in one of the two alternatives). The final EIS is currently projected to be completed in 2009. o Natural resources Recommended Buffers: - 100 to 300 foot buffer of the edge of the natural features - A 50 foot buffer is recommended for wetlands not adjacent to Fossil creek Reservoir - A buffer of 1,320 feet is proposed to protect bald eagles winter roosting areas as defined by Colorado Department of Wildlife (CDOW). Land Conservation & Stewardship Board October 10, 2007 Page 3 of 11 o Framework Plan — map of plan was handed out to the Board ■ Highlights include: - Bus Rapid Transit accessible from both sides of the interstate with pedestrian overpass - Gateway bridge - Substantial retail and mixed use development - Open space and trails to connect natural systems • Theobald: (hi reference to the SW Frontage Road alternatives map) these alternatives that you refer to, A, B, C, you refer C coming from CDOT, has A and B also came from there? • Wray: A and B came from this process as an alternative to what CDOT is showing on their EIS. • Stanley: Why would you choose those over the CDOT plan? • Wray: We're looking at several things 1) our City structure plan map has recognized this area as an activity center for many years 2) we need to look at appropriate land use and potential future development to help fund the interchange. We are looking at separate actions, separate from the CDOT process and EIS. We're looking at providing more land within that area and the activity center and also looking at different buffer set -backs for the Natural Areas. • Leavitt: The third thing is, moving it further West allows extended stacking for transportation requirements. • Stanley: Lets suppose you give Frontage Road to CDOT, how close would you build to those wetlands as compared to those roads? • Wray: If Council picks one of these Frontage Road alignments as their recommendation the question would be, if C were chosen, would development be only on the East side of Frontage Road, and not have any development on the West side? With a larger site to work with you would have more flexibility for size and type of project to work with. The second question is, is a road an appropriate separation between a buffer set -back or developments, parking lots, intense human activity, and buildings? The difference between these alternatives is about a 130 feet. • Stanley: That seems like it could be a significant difference, and Dave I'd like your opinion on buffers. • Theobald: I wonder over all how much impervious surface and how much activity are going on. The distance buffers are more related to wildlife activity. • Wray: From Windsor's perspective, they're going with the state land report and want to get this project done. Most of the issues are on our side of I-25. Our challenge is looking at the direction and support for good partnership and coming up with a joint partnership to fund the interchange reconstruction and looking at the amount of available land use and fish and wildlife to help contribute to that. The other side of that is that we have critical resources areas on the West side. Wray pointed out on a map the regional part of the property. • Theobald: From what I understand from a wildlife perspective, the set back is important but also what are important are the uses that will be allowed on that Land Conservation & Stewardship Board October 10, 2007 Page 4 of 11 peninsula. If there is a residential area there, you need to consider what kind of access is allowed and you want to strike a balance. • Leavitt: I've been asked by the County to work out what is going to happen there because if it gets annexed then it's our program that gets overlaid on. I'm sure when we are done it will not get pushed against the 1,300 foot radius for housing development. • Theobald: I'm wondering if a discussion is in the mix regarding the potential for people who may live in the area to trespass, and eventually create a social trail through the peninsula. • Leavitt: One of the reports from ERO talks about what kind of protection there would be so there wouldn't be too much intrusion through the buffer zone. This is one of the things we will work on in this review process. • Wray: Just as we are looking at different funding options for Council to look at, we anticipate those to be further negotiated as we continue the implementation over the next couple of years. As far as alignments, we also anticipate that there will be further discussion and coordination over the next couple of years either as a result or a response to development in this area. In the interim projects before the overall interchange is completed, it is very likely that an interchange alignment will be coordinated sooner than the final full project will be completed. • Boyd: Is there Prairie Dog towns in the flat field? • Wray: There are Prairie Dogs in this field, and also across the wetlands as you get into the regional park area. • Stanley: The 50 foot buffer seems very minimal compared to when we talk about the 300 foot buffer at the river. Please comment on the normal City regulations on that and why the difference in the buffer footage. • Leavitt: The City has buffers for wetlands that range from 50 feet to over 100 feet and then there are shore land buffers because of the wildlife that lives there. If an area comes for development review, we have strict standards under the land use code for Natural Areas and habitats. Currently these are lines on paper, once the development proposal comes in then this map is evaluated to an ecological territorialization study, and then we look at the value of the wetland and the value of the open space buffer, and what kind of activity is happening there. We also look at what true buffers should be there and what kind of enhancement to bring that buffer up to more of a wildlife corridor, because that's truly what these buffers are successful at. We rely on a letter from Gerry Craig that states that roadways can be used as a buffer, and that wildlife will move along that. I agree that traffic counts have to be taken into account. Leavitt showed different buffer areas on a slide map. • Wray: What hasn't been mentioned yet is that 392 will be widened from a two lane to a four lane highway. There will be impacts with the widening of this road. • Stanley: Will this interchanged be included on the 2008 ballot for transportation funding? • Wray: It could be depending where we are at in our time frame. • Stanley: I assume that CDOT will take care of this or does it not happen that way? Land Conservation & Stewardship Board October 10, 2007 Page 5 of 11 • Wray: CDOT and the MPO have a priority list of projects in Northern Colorado. CDOT is contributing a small amount and have made it very clear that they do not have the funding for this project. • Stanley: If it were on the 2008 ballot as part of that package would it no longer be which one do we want A or B, but because we had proposed C, is that what would be built? • Wray: If they had funding they would be mandated to move forward with their EIS package and alternative C is part of their type item configuration, that is what they would build if they had affordable funding. We anticipate that we are going to see development come forward sooner than CDOT will be ready to build this interchange. From a City's perspective we're going to coordinate and respond to development and look at these other alternatives as potentially a separate action from the EIS process. • Theobald: Options A and B are there because you won't be able to get more money because of commercial land? • Wray: We're trying to look at the development potential of the activity center. We looking to come up with the appropriate land use support for funding this project on both sides. • Theobald: Will this project pay its own way or will we be behind? • Wray: We are looking at a local partnership to come up with a solution for this interchange, because CDOT does not have the funds. We are looking to partner with the MPO, CDOT, Windsor (we are not sure about Latimer County), private land owners and their representatives and developers to come up with a funding package that is fair for the associated benefits in and around this area. • Haines: What is Windsor's part of that 22 million? • Wray: We are looking roughly at 2 million from CDOT. In the next couple of years we will request funds from the MPO, and at this point Windsor has identified 1 million dollars and the same from Fort Collins. • Haines: Windsor has caused the heavy use. • McLane: The MPO has a model that can show us where people using this interchange come from. Of the traffic at the interchange, in 2005, 37 percent has a trip end in Fort Collins, 15 percent has a trip end in Loveland, 29 percent has a trip end in Windsor and 3 percent has a trip end in Greeley. In 2025 the estimate is 31 percent with a trip end in Fort Collins, 27 percent with a trip end in Loveland, 26 percent with a trip end in Windsor and less than one percent with a trip end in Greeley. It's the usual cross regional traffic situation with people living, working, and shopping in different parts of the region. • Stanley: What is the best buffer? I have respect for Gerry Craig, but I'm not sure that he is doing the most current research because he is retired from the Division of Wildlife. I would like to see what is the best buffer from someone who is currently studying this type of work. Stokes pointed out on a map, what the ownership of the Natural Areas is. • Wray: It's up to you whether you want to do a full recommendation to Council or we can include the minutes from this meeting as part of our Council packet. We're going to recommendation hearings on October 17"' in Windsor and our Land Conservation & Stewardship Board October 10, 2007 Page 6 of 11 Plan and Zoning Board on October 18`h. Our Council is scheduled for November 6'h to accept the plan. • Stanley: Personally I like it when we give a recommendation to Council. What I can do is take the minutes and write something up regarding the concerns and then send it on to the Board for review, and then send it to Council. Parks Plan — • Forman: I will be talking about the Parks and Recreation policy plan update. GreenPlay is a nationwide consulting company which specializes in parks and recreation master plans. They were hired about a year ago by the City of Fort Collins to do the public outreach for the City. GreenPlay is assisted by Design Concepts a local company. The purpose of the project is to update the City of For Collins' 1996 Parks and Recreation Policy Plan setting the vision, guidelines, and standards for parks, trails and recreation for the next ten years. The Plan includes sections on recreation facilities, recreation trends, funding needs, and short range and long range action items. It is based on an extensive public process to identify the unique needs of the community and results in recommendations that balance these needs with resources of the City. Please review chapter one, two and three, jot down your ideas and changes, and I would like to return to the Board at a future meeting to discuss any ideas or changes. The presentation included some of the following: o A. Project Team o B. Project Purpose o C. Project Elements o Chapter One - City staffing overview: Natural Resources Department section with the mission of: Air Quality, Natural Areas, Recycling and Solid Waste, and Environmental Planning and Information o Chapter Two — Purpose and Vision o Chapter Three — Mail -in Survey Methodology - Survey conducted by mail in mid -March - Sent to 4,000 households throughout City (net 3,760 deliverable) - 444 statistically valid surveys received - 12% response rate - Margin of error + / - 4.65% - Results weighted by age to ensure appropriate representation - Mail in survey Respondent Characteristics - distribution of survey respondents 16% Northwest ■ 22% Southwest ■ 16% Central Fort Collins ■ 13%Northeast • 27% Southeast Land Conservation & Stewardship Board October 10, 2007 Page 7 of 11 • 87% registered voters in Fort Collins o Chapter Four: Need focus groups o Chapter Five: Funding o Chapter Six: State of our System o Chapter Seven: GRASP (geo-referenced amenities standards program) is a tool to inventory components of parks and recreation facilities. o Chapter Eight: Recommendation and action items • Theobald: In a brief read we think of using these areas for recreational purposes. If you want to have a sustainable, livable community then one would see trails as a way for commuting. • Foreman: The Power trail is a fine example; it is a popular commuter trail as well as a recreational trail. • Theobald: So the thought is that this is part of the vision and values, to see to what extent you can balance. It's not only about a recreational experience. • Foreman: Sometimes the commuter is the child using the trail for school in the morning. I'll try to put a few more sentences about this in the plan. • Stanley: Did they do a lot of follow-up to get more surveys in? • Foreman: No. • Stanley: I feel that in a mail -in survey it's the people who have the most investment that are the ones who are likely to respond to a survey, so you get that select bias. Is there a way to measure that? • Foreman: I can ask. On the mail -in surveys there was a good representation across the community. • Theobald: Has there been a connection with the Museum and this master plan, and whether it needs to be made? • Stokes: A new map of the Natural Areas is being developed and may be ready sometime in December. We are hoping in the future to add features to this map. • Haines: One guiding principle about this is to have things natural wherever we can for low maintenance cost. • Foreman: I'll be back sometime is November or December to discuss your comments and suggestions. Harmony Road and I-25 Development Plan Hendee: I would like to give you an overview of the H-25 conceptual master plan and explain to you how this is based on the anti -sprawl concept. We're not looking for decisions this evening we would just like to explain the plan. Stokes: I asked BHA to talk to the Board about this project because it has a relationship to the Natural Area to the North, which is Riverbend Ponds. Harmony Road will need to be improved to accommodate some flood flows. There will be impacts to the Natural Area due to the flood control improvements that need to be built around that road, which are associated with this project. All of that will be coming to the Board in the future. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board October 10, 2007 Page 8 of 11 • Hendee: Between Harmony Road and Kechter Road there is about 300 acres, which goes from I-25 to County Road Seven. The fundamental concept behind this is that it is a transit orientated development. A transit orientated development is a planning concept, which is gaining a lot of acceptance across the United States. It is focused on reducing urban sprawl while at the same time allowing for a high quality of life. One of the concepts behind it is that it has to be located at a major transit hub and it provides a mixed use development that helps to reduce a lot of vehicle miles traveled through the way it is designed. However, all the Poudre River water does not go under the bridge because the bridge wasn't sized right. We've been working with Anderson Consulting and TS&T Engineers and Development to develop a plan for how that storm flow can occur through this particular area. Also, the State Land Board owns property by the light and they are interested in developing the property. We have been working with them to develop the property into a transit hub. The Mason corridor, when approved, will have a transit stop on Harmony Road and according to the master plan, traffic will go out the new transit station and that will be a vital link to help create the interlocking transit area. Hendee described to the Board the concepts of the development using flip charts. • Haines: I like the fact that you are looking at density and sprawl, but I'm concerned about high-rises obscuring the view of the mountains. • Stokes: Where are you in your process for implementation? • Hendee: We are still doing master planning, and the property has not been annexed into the City yet. The time frame is that earth work would start at the earliest in spring of 2008 and would take a year to accomplish with construction starting in 2009. • Sears: It would be good for your planners to visit with Craig Foreman and myself to talk about the parks, because you alluded that some of your concepts on trail could be misleading to a lot of folks. • Theobald: What about timing with school systems? • Hendee: We have an area designated for this. • Sears: We started a concept of relocating the Fossil Creek inlet ditch on Eagle View making it more of a natural amenity. Our whole concept is based on someone needing all the dirt we are going to excavate on our site. We were looking for someone to remove all the dirt with no cost to us. For the last six months we've been working with Stoner to come up with an agreement, which will have to be approved by Council because it is a sole source deal. In Stoner's letter of intent they state that they will take the 600,000 cubic yards of dirt and they will also do all the finish grading. We will do the restoration and finish the parking lots. • Haines: I would like to see an artisan area included in the development. • Hendee: We would like to create a cultural environment. Stanley: I feel that all these wonderful concepts should be downtown and not near the interstate. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board October 10, 2007 Page 9ofII • Hendee: We are not trying to steal from the merchants downtown; the merchants actually want to put a second store in the area. • Stanley: I'm concerned about the end result looking nothing like the concept plans. • Hendee: I can't promise you that things will happen the way they are shown. Jay and Russ have been consistent that everything we do here will be a very strong "Green", ethical and regional concept not a national concept. We are developing a financial model based on those attributes. • Theobald: We're on the Board here to represent Natural Areas and open space, and yet when you look at the project there is a Natural Area above it and one below it. Fossil Creek is one of the best representations of wildlife habitat in the area, and you are putting a large development in the middle of these Natural Areas, this will impact the wildlife there. Is there a way of working this into your design? • Hendee: That is a very good comment and we will have to address this in order to be successful. CSU/City Land Exchange • Stokes: Council will be considering this at its next meeting, and I would like action from the Board regarding this transaction. The second reading will be November 6, 2007 and the closing for this transaction will be November 19, 2007. This is contingent on Council's approval. Stokes showed the Board a PowerPoint presentation explaining the transaction, which included maps of the land exchange. o Vicinity map — proposed city CSU transaction o Resource Recovery Farm proposed City — CSU transaction map o Reservoir Ridge proposed City— CSU transaction map o The Transaction ■ Trading 143-acres of the RRF for 267 acres of CSU land ■ Trade parcels valued at $4 million each ■ Optioning 27 acres from CSURF ■ Option parcel valued at $405,000 ■ The 143-acre tract is two pieces ■ The 25-acre piece is being acquired by Natural Areas from the general fund fro $2 million ■ It will be conveyed with all development rights intact • The I I8-acre piece is owned by Natural Areas, acquired in 2003 for $1,453,509, part of a 151-acre acquisition at the time • Natural Areas will hold back 33 acres on Box Elder and by the Poudre River ■ The 118-acre parcel subject to forty percent development restriction o Development Restriction o Ownership and Tax Status of 143-acre Trade Parcel o Return on Investment Land Conservation & Stewardship Board October 10, 2007 Page 10 of 11 o Reservoir Ridge Natural Area — total area will be 748 acres. o Values — per acre trade value of 143-acre site is $28K • McLane: How did the City's general fund acquire the 25 acres? • Stokes: It was acquired by Utilities around 1990. • Theobald: Why do you have the forty percent green space restriction, and why do you want it campus like? Why isn't it for open space or Natural Areas? • Stokes: This came from policy directions from City Council. When Council directed us to buy it back in 2003 they wanted to retain it as a youth corridor. • Theobald: It's not for natural value it's for scenic value. The wording can be clearer on that. • Haines: Don't underestimate the recruitment of employees wanting to work in a natural area setting, for a lot of scientists preserving nature is important. This company will probably comply with your requests. • McLane: You indicated that there are other folks interested in the companies that might locate out there? • Stokes: AVA Solar is working with CSU and they are hoping to locate their company there, which will be a 100,000 square foot building. • McLane: How will they access these properties? • Stokes: Access will be off Prospect, by the traffic light. • Stanley: Are there going to be view shed and design requirements? • Stokes: Not none beyond what are all ready require in the code. • Stokes: The cash that the Natural Areas need to put into this is about $2.4 million. Vicky McLane move to recommend that Council approve the City of Fort Collins — CSU Transaction. Boyd second, and it was unanimously approved. New Business: Stanley: I would like to have a discussion about Community Separators as an agenda item for our November meeting. Haines: In January I would like a discussion about the Natural Areas Volunteer Trail Host program. Announcements: Stokes: Kyle Copas is with NatureServe. NatureServe is a company that catalogues biological diversity using databases of which the Colorado Natural Heritage programs feed into. Kyle is working on a duo project for NatureServe and National Geographic to help create a web site that helps facilitate conservation throughout the United States. Ways that they want to do this is by featuring special projects from around the country, and they have selected our Soapstone and Larimer County Foothills Mountains to Plains theme to be one of the test projects. All the software they are using was developed by a company here in Fort Collins. Sam Solt is the owner of the company, who I've also met Land Conservation & Stewardship Board October 10, 2007 Page 11 of 11 with. The name of the web site is Land Scope. This is a wonderful opportunity for us. Dave do you have anything to add? • Theobald: They will build case studies and then plan on going Nation Wide. • Stokes: Last week was the Land Trust Alliance rally in Denver. Peter Forbes did an interesting presentation on his system for measuring environmental and community wide health; he calls it whole communities. He's trying to bring people together who do work in affordable housing, environmental and social justice and knit these themes together. One of his main points is that story telling is one of the most powerful tools we have in the conservation community. I would like to bring him to Fort Collins to talk with us. • Sears: The Grand Opening for Primrose, the property donated to the City by the Udall's, will be on Sunday, November 18, 2007, from 2-5 p.m. so please mark your calendars. • Stokes: I will send out an email regarding the logistics for the Board trip to Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. The date for the tour is Tuesday, November 6, 2007. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Submitted by Geri lUdawski Administrative Secretary