Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Conservation And Stewardship Board - Minutes - 05/14/2008MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND CONSERVATION & STEWARDSHIP BOARD Regular Meeting 215 North Mason, Conference Room 1A May 14, 2008 DATE: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 LOCATION: 215 North Mason, Conference Room 1 A TIME: 6:00 p.m. For Reference: Linda Stanley - 491-7377 Mayor Doug Hutchinson - 416-2154 John Stokes, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Raymond Boyd, Linsey DeBell , Chris Gaughan, Trudy Haines, Vicky McLane, Linda Stanley, Dave Theobold, Karyl Ting Board Members Excused Michelle Grooms Council Liaison Mayor, Doug Hutchinson Staff Present Natural Resources / Natural Areas Department: Mark Sears, John Stokes, Erica Saunders Guests Bob Smith - City of Fort Collins Water Planning and Development Manager Bonnie Adamson - Larimer County League of Women Voters Public Comments None Agenda Review • Stanley: Clark Mapes' presentation was cancelled. Review and Approval of Minutes McLane motioned to accept the April 9, 2008 minutes as written. Boyd second. It was unanimously approved. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board May 14, 2008 Page 2 of 9 Boxelder Creek Regional Stormwater Master Plan Bob Smith) • Stokes: This project is for a water feature in the northeast part of town and in the County. It was reviewed previously by the Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB). At one point they had decided not to bring this plan to the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board (LCSB) because formerly the LCSB's charter would not allow the Board to review projects if there was no direct nexus to Natural Areas. Council asked for the Board's charter to be revised (which would include review of this project) and at the Board's last meeting, they recommended those changes. The ordinance makes clear that the LCSB will not be in the business of development review because the City already has a Planning and Zoning Board to do that. Although the Board can not give direct feedback to Council, we can give feedback to Bob Smith. Bob Smith (City of Fort Collins Water Planning and Development Manager) gave a presentation on the Boxelder Creek Regional Stormwater Master Plan. The presentation included: ■ Background • Floodplain ■ Floodplain — North ■ Coal Creek Floodplain Above CR 68 ■ Coal Creek Floodplain into Wellington ■ Floodplain- north to MountainVista ■ Boxelder Ck above RC 58 • I-25 Overflow breakout below ■ Floodplain - Mountain Vista to Prospect ■ Boxelder Creek below CR 52 • Boxelder Creek above CR 52 • Overflow along I-25 above Mountain Vista ■ Floodplain — Prospect south ■ Boxelder Creek above Vine Drive ■ Overflow along I-25 above Mulberry ■ Summary of potential consequences ■ Boxelder Creek regional alliance ■ Boxelder Creek regional master plan ■ Alternatives evaluated ■ Recommended alternative — regional storage and conveyance ■ Recommended alternative (phase 2) ■ Master plan improvements ■ Improvements — north • Improvements — south of Wellington • Improvements — south • Potential funding sources • Process ■ Inter -governmental agreement • Haines: Why did the City take the lead on this project? • Smith: The County actually took the lead, and the City was just a participant. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board May 14, 2008 Page 3 of 9 Smith pointed out that the parcels that the Natural Areas Program may have an interest in are Pearson, Vangbo property, and Running Deer Natural Area. • Stanley: What about the Cooper Slough? • Sears: We have worked hard over the last few years to acquire properties in this area but didn't find any willing sellers. • Stanley: What could landowners do with properties in the floodplain? • Smith: Our regulations do not allow improvements in the floodplain. • Haines: Would the County regulations allow development in the floodplain? • Smith: The County has the same floodplain regulations as the City? • Haines Would the Natural Areas Program be interested in buying properties if they are in the floodplain and protected? • Sears: We are interested, but have not been able to convince anybody to sell because the market value of the properties is not very high. • Stanley: Would this project have an effect on Cooper Slough? • Smith: No. • Stanley: I think taking property out of the floodplain is not an improvement, and basically the public is subsidizing a private individual's investment. • Gaughan: Do you need to provide more floodplain area in a different location if you remove land from the floodplain? • Smith: No, it is different than if you remove a wetland. • Haines: How many people live in the affected area? • Smith: There are about 670 structures, but some are residential and some are commercial. • Stanley: Will Timnath be involved in this project? • Smith: No, Timnath wants to expand their Growth Management Area (GMA) to Richard's Lake and the County has told them that if they annex land that is a tributary to Boxelder, they will need to pay for improvements. However, land farther south is not part of this GMA agreement and Timnath will receive improvements they are not going to pay for. Timnath has indicated they will intercept flows and divert water to the river in a different location from where it has historically flowed. • Stanley: The Natural Areas Program is interested in acquiring several of the affected properties, and now these properties would become more expensive by taking them out of the floodplain. • Sears: Would the owners of private lands that will benefit from these improvements participant in the project? • Smith: Yes. An IGA would be developed to pay the costs but the costs have not been identified yet. For the City of Fort Collins these properties would currently pay a plant (facility) investment fee at the time of building permit. That is $4,420 per acre; if the alliance charges a fee of $1,000 per acre, the rest of the fee would go into the City's pot of money. • Stanley: We are slitting our throats with this project because we are taking land out of the floodplain to make it more developable, and that is land we are interested in acquiring (area in the Timnath community separator). Why would we want to take that property out of the floodplain? Land Conservation & Stewardship Board May 14, 2008 Page 4of9 • Smith: In order to reduce damages to properties farther north, we need to reduce the flow at the split, which removes these properties from the floodplain. We can't eliminate the threat farther north without eliminating the flow through this area. • McLane: A lot of damages and economic expense would be avoided with this project. • Stanley: What benefits are included in the cost analysis? By taking land out of the floodplain, the value of land goes up, but this should not be included in the benefit analysis because it only benefits the landowner. • Smith: Typically this benefit value is not included in the cost analysis, but since this was done by committee, the committee wanted to include it. • Theobald: I have three main comments. 1) The language in the document is weird. It talks about removing structures from the floodplain when these structures are not actually being moved; the floodplain is being changed. From a natural areas perspective, what makes these properties good is the natural ecological process of flooding. With this project we are using more engineering to straighten, dam up, and modify the natural processes. We are removing all possible natural values. 2) Basically the crux of this project is that there are two reservoirs that will be modified / improved to increase storage area. In 100 years what is going to happen? Will we be in same spot? 3) The projections on a 100 year flood were based on presuming some sort of climate in the future using historical climate. Is this not an issue, or more important of an issue, with climate change? • Smith: We have done some research in the climate change area, and the experts are talking about fewer storms, but more severe storms, but it is not certain what that means. • Gaughan: This relates to Theobald's first and third comments - if culverts can't handle the storm then they will still get broken. • Smith: They use the 100 year flood as a standard. • Theobald: I'm worried about shrinking the floodplain and allowing more development to occur. The dams are likely to fill up from siltation over time, and effective reservoir capacity will be declining over time. • Smith: Once we build a facility we have an obligation to maintain it. • Theobald: Why can't we buy the structures rather than move the floodplain. Would that be considered as an option? • Smith: That brings in the issue of fixed income and relocation. It does not address the infrastructure, and people driving through these areas are at risk. • Theobald: Has there been any talk about requirements for future development to minimize the amount of impervious surface. That was one of the "gotchas" of the Spring Creek flood — even though stormwater features were in place, the watershed was developed and created a flash system. • Smith: The impervious surface has not been discussed, but due to the undeveloped nature of the watershed we are ahead of the game. One of the factors is guidance for new development. • Theobald: It might be interesting to make recommendations about land use and try to reduce the amount of impervious surface. • Smith: We are looking at best management practices that reduce the impact of development on water quality. We will be asking Council if they want us to continue 0 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board May 14, 2008 Page 5 of 9 working on this or not. We had direction to put a regional plan together in 2004 and this is where we're at. • Haines: I am still unclear about the structures that will be removed from the floodplain in Phases II and III. • Smith: Phases II and III relate to infrastructure like road crossings. Phase I deals with structures; II and III deal with emergency response and commuting/ transportation. • Haines: I have four worries: 1) $36 million is a lot of money; 2) This project will increase the cost of land that we're potentially interested in for community separators. By doing this we are shooting ourselves in the foot; 3) I am uncomfortable using taxpayer money to make land more valuable so someone else can develop it. This is not our role; 4) If Timnath is a beneficiary of this project, I am concerned that they are not participating. • Stokes: I was under the impression at the NRAB discussion that the landowners who benefit directly from the project would be paying for it. • Smith: The City's share of the payment would come from fees collected from Boxelder Creek. • Stokes: There will be a direct relationship between the land that benefits, and the stormwater fees. • Smith: Plans project out 30-40 years, and it will be about 10 years before things are built. • DeBell: What percentage of the project would be funded by stormwater fees? • Smith: There's not a lot of City property is in this area, maybe less than 20%, so we are not a big player in this. • Sears: Do we contribute based on the GMA or the City limits? • Smith: It is based on City limits, but it would still need to be worked out how changes would take place as annexations occur. • McLane: Construction costs have doubled in the last year and removing 33 roadways from flooding is a huge savings. There are some negatives but we are forgetting the infrastructure benefits. • Smith: It will help existing roads and future roads. Part of the $36 million will be spent on building bridges at locations so water will no longer overtop the road. • Stanley: How is the area affected if there is not a flood? Smith went back through the slides at the beginning of the presentation and said there is flow in the drainage but it hasn't been treated very well; it has been abused. There are agriculture fields right to the edge, riprap, and steep banks. If these areas developed we would be able to kick in buffer standards and development standards. • Haines: Has wildlife and environmental impact studies been done on the effects of the improvements. • Smith: They have not been done yet. • Gaughan: What about Cooper Sough and eliminating the surface flow as recharge for the area. • Smith The surface flow only occurs every 100 years. • Gaughan: Is most of the local hydrology unrelated to Cooper Slough? • Smith: That is correct. They are concerned about additional urbanization in the Mountain Vista area, and making sure the flows are clean, but that is separate from Boxelder. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board May 14, 2008 Page 6 of 9 • Stanley: We are taking property out of the floodplain that we want as a separator and Timnath is dying to get their hands on it for development. On a field trip to the area I was struck by how much open area there is, and how it has a rural feel. Now we are almost guaranteeing this area will be developed. It will be developed by Timnath, so they get all the goodies and we pay for it. It bothers me that we continue to engineer ourselves out of the mess that we have created; we have already built roads so now we have to protect those values. • Theobald: The roads are there to serve us, not us to serve them. • Smith: If this project doesn't go forward, we are still going to see development out there. • Ting: What about the City of Fort Collins' existing policies. • Smith: The City has already adopted a master plan on the west side of I-25, and we know what the structures in that area need to be. • Ting: What is the City's strategy is if the alliance falls down? • Smith: We already have floodplain regulations. • Ting: There is always the issue of mitigating floodplain development and we already have a mechanism in place for this. • Smith: There is no master plan east of I-25, if this doesn't get approved; we would go our own separate ways rather than doing a regional project. • DeBell: Would the existing City infrastructure be impacted? • Smith: There is one structure with capacity for flows (on Mulberry), and all other structures would be impacted. The City has criteria saying arterial streets can't have water overtopping streets because these are set aside for emergency response. Arterials in Fort Collins are on the mile. Prospect would be impacted — there are two locations on Prospect west of 1-25 where water overtops the road. • Ting: Would the City's cost for those improvements basically be equal to our share of the regional improvement project. • Smith: Yes. • Stokes: The NRAB did make a recommendation to Council on this project. They recommended to support the project but wanted to make sure money would be invested back into restoration, and didn't want to subsidize the benefits gained by others. Community Separators Discussion Stokes passed out copies of a memo that was provided to Council regarding community separators. • Stanley: The field trip committee took a field trip with Sears to look at community separators. This trip opened my eyes as to what land is available, and we saw some really nice properties. • Stokes: Sears has done a great job working on community separators and knows a lot about who owns what, what has been going on out there, and has been particularly pro- active in the Wellington community separator area. We want to do more community separator projects, but need to wait until landowners are ready. We have an opportunity to stretch our dollars in the Wellington area by using Farm Bill money. Currently there are no transactions in process. 0 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board May 14, 2008 Page 7 of 9 • Sears: I received 3-4 calls in January and February as the housing market was declining, but it takes a long time for people's perceptions to change. • Stokes: It would be good to hear feedback from the Board. If these properties develop under current zoning (Zone O), they have to develop at low densities. In the past Council members have worried about the use of conservation easements (CEs), but we think it is the best tool to use in the community separator area because of the cost effectiveness and ability to retain land in agricultural production. Given the projections for available future money, we actually have money to conserve a lot of that land. • Ting: Is there an ongoing dialogue with the City of Thornton. • Stokes: Yes, I talk to them about every 6 months. The Board discussed areas in the Wellington separator that are "managed as open land." • Theobald: Who owns that property? • Stokes: It is not permanently protected, just managed as open land now. Some of the parcels are owned by CSU, one by the Division of Wildlife, and a few (soccer field and golf course) are private. The Board discussed the Timnath community separator. • Haines: If we can acquire a few of these properties, it would provide a sense of separation. • DeBell: Will these properties be re -zoned in the future? • Sears: Yes, Timnath will likely want to develop those areas more densely. I'm not sure how they would divert water as they are planning, or lower the water table, because currently those properties hold a lot of free water and the water table is very close to the surface. • Haines: I'm a big believer in CE's because they are very cost effective and they keep the land rural. Could the Board periodically hear an update on the status of the community separators, and which lands are promising? • Sears: Yes, we can provide periodic updates. • DeBell: Does Bingham Hill qualify as a separator? • Stokes: No, but it is in our local conservation area. NISP Update • Stokes: The City is working hard to review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the NISP project. I am the City's project manager for reviewing the DEIS, and in addition to a great team of City staff, there are consultants and CSU professors helping the review. On May 6a' we went to Council and asked for additional money to fund the review process. Overall, the total price tag for the review will be $750,000. That money covers three major categories: 1) drinking water quality, 2) environmental impacts on river corridor through town (Overland to I-25), and 3) outside legal counsel. The City has hired a law firm from Denver with NEPA experience to assist them. The City has officially requested an extension of the review period from the Army Corps of Engineers, but the Corps said they would wait until after the public meetings scheduled in Greeley and Fort Collins to make a decision. The Fort Collins public meeting will be held on June 17d' at the Senior Center. 7 Land Conservation & Stewardship Board May 14, 2008 Page 8 of 9 July 20 is the end of the initial 90-day comment period; the City is looking for an extension of the comment period because routing material through the Council process is very laborious. Currently they are planning to go to Council on June IOs' for a work session and July Is' for a regular meeting. • Stanley: Will the LCSB have a chance to review. • Stokes: Yes, they will come back to the Board in June. I will be out of town but Rick Bachand will be the Natural Resources Department staff person, and Marty Heffernan will probably take over some of his duties as well. • Stanley: I was asked to meet with the chairs of other boards that will review the DEIS (Parks, Water, and NRAB). They will talk about ways to split up the load for reviewing the document because it is so large. • Stokes: The Larimer County boards have been asked by the Commissioners to comment. • Stanley: The LCSB may want to create a sub -committee to review the document. • Haines: The comments that the Natural Resources Department will provide, will they be different from the comments we have already given. • Stokes: The comments will be much more specific and substantive in nature. • Ting: The DEIS addresses issues related to civil engineering, drinking water quality, etc. • Stokes: Yes, it does, but some of it is at a high level. This is something staff is looking at to make sure the issues are covered in enough depth. The Army Corps only has one staff person working on reviewing this project. • Ting: Is there a relationship between the Halligan/Seaman project and the Glade project? • Stokes: There is no direct relationship; the Halligan/Seaman project is on its own path. However, the Corps needs to look at the cumulative impact of the projects. • DeBell: The NEPA process is about disclosure, and the DEIS doesn't take a position for or against the project. • Stokes: Yes, that's right and the DEIS is designed to be a transparent way of analyzing the issue. They will have to get a 404 permit from the government, and with this project when a Final EIS is released and Record of Decision adopted by the Army Corps, that will migrate into the permit. This is a little different from the way that other branches of the Corps do this. The Final EIS rolls over into the permit, which is why the City of Fort Collins and other reviewers need to be confident that the EIS addresses all of the relevant issues and has firm mitigation prescriptions that will roll over into permit. They will need a lot of permits, not just a 404 permit, but that is the biggest one. Lots of other agencies like the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fish and Wildlife Service and Colorado Department of Transportation are also involved in the review. Election of vice -chair • Stanley: The floor is open for nominations or volunteers to be vice -chair. • McLane: I nominated Theobald. Theobald: I would consider accepting, but I will be going on sabbatical starting this July. Gaughan: I would be willing to be vice -chair, but since I'm so new I hesitate to take the position. McLane: I will accept be vice -chair position. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board May 14, 2008 Page 9 of 9 Ting nominated Gaughan and McLane to be co -vice chairs. Boyd second. It was unanimously approved. Soapstone Update Sears presented a slide show virtual tour of the improvements being constructed at Soapstone. He showed images of the road and bridge constructions, parking areas, and artists' renderings of the kiosks, entrance station and Lindenmeier overlook shelter. He said that this summer the Natural Areas Program (NAP) will be giving 60 driving, hiking, and biking tours of the site. • Haines: I suggest that the NAP provide an opportunity for visitors to give donations to the program. • Gaughan: Will the NAP water native seed for restoration along the edges of the road construction. • Sears: Native seed will not even be planted, and the area will not be watered. • Stokes: We hope that natives will move in from adjacent areas. • Boyd: What about the ADA accessible trail to the Lindenmeier overlook. • Sears: The staff is currently debating whether or not to pave that portion of trail to the Lindenmeier overlook (about '% mile). They are leaning toward paving it with a colored cement to make it easier for wheelchairs and elderly people to use it. • Theobald: What about the availability of potable water for visitors. • Stokes: There are no current plans, but we may be able to have water available at the entrance station. Announcements None Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Submitted by Erica Saunders, Environmental Planner and Geri Kidawski, Administrative Secretary N