Minutes City of Glenwood Springs Parks and Recreation Commission Glenwood Springs Community Center. July 11, :00 P.M.

Transcription

1 Minutes City of Glenwood Springs Parks and Recreation Commission Glenwood Springs Community Center July 11, :00 P.M. 1. Roll Call: a. Commission: Chelsea Parkison, Rick Tadus, Bill Coleman, Andy Mueller, James Fosnaught, & Dana Paterson b. Staff: Cristi Newton, Pat Miller & Brian Smith c. Council Rep: Jonathon Godes 2. Citizen Comments: Not on agenda, no action at this meeting, limit 5 minutes per citizen. 3. Approval of June Minutes a. Bill E. made the motion. Rick T. second. All were in favor. None opposed 4. Memorial Request: Nicki Foust a. Nicki gave an overview of her past interactions with the Parks and Recreation Department and the Commission since 2015 concerning a memorial in Two Rivers Park for her son Gavin. b. Chelsea suggested suppling the memorial policy to Nicky c. James made the motion to stand by the denial of Nicky s request at this time and asked that staff provide Nicky with a copy of the memorial policy as well as the prior letter of denial. The Nicky may reapply in the future. 5. River Commission Presentation a. Ashley Moffat and Brendon Langenhuizen gave an overview of what the River Commission is working on and their goals for (Attached) b. Ashley is the River Commission Member who is working with staff on the Veltus and Two Rivers projects. She provided a list of recommended native plant and trees that could be used on the shorelines. (Attached) c. Andy made the motion to support the River Commissions 2019 budget request of $50,000 for the Three Mile Confluence Planning and Design Project. Second by Bill Coleman. All in Favor. None opposed.

2 d. The River Commission invited all Parks and Recreation Commissioners to attend RiverFest Staff Report: Pat Miller: Marketing and Events Coordinator a. Pat gave the commission an update on the events that is doing and has done for He also gave them a good idea of what events he would like to add in the future. 7. Ice Rink Improvements a. The department is looking at cost effective options to enclose the Ice Rink in order to extend programming at the rink year round. b. Some foundation work will also be budgeted for in Commissions Funding Priorities for 2019 Budget a. Brian asked that the Commission develop a list of 3 5 funding priorities. He suggested that one of the committees take lead on this list. b. Commission members decided that they would begin an communication chain to start the conversation on their priorities. James agreed to lead the discussion th Street Pocket Park Motion to add 6 th Street Pocket Park to the agenda made by Andy. Second by Bill Coleman. All in favor. None opposed. a. Discussion on the future plans for the 6 th street landing area. There was a resolution passed by council that allows the City to put in grass and trees without it being designated a park. The commission felt that if the area is designed well as a Park it would benefit the community. They felt that by just planting trees and grass they might be attracting transient populations. b. The commission voiced their disappointment with the council s decision c. The commission felt that it was their responsibility to the citizens of Glenwood Springs to be their voice and let council know that they want to see 6 th street as a properly planed park for the community s benefit and not as a piece of land to save for future real estate development. d. Andy Mueller made the motion that the commission strongly recommend to the Council they engage in a proper planning process and convert the 6 th Street landing area to a well-designed multipurpose City park for the City s use and perpetuity. The Commission wanted to ensure that Council understood it is their strong recommendation that the 6 th street property not be disposed of or used as future real estate transaction. Second by Rick Tadus. All were in Favor. None Opposed. 10. Remainder of Agenda to be moved to next meeting. Adjourn 8:33 pm

3 City Council STAFF REPORT City of Glenwood Springs July 19, 2018 Agenda Item: Action Requested: Presented By: Background Info: Action Alternatives: Work Session - River Commission Funding Request No action required at this time. Trent L. Hyatt, Senior Planner/River Commission Staff Liaison At their regular meeting on June 6, 2018, the River Commission reviewed and voted on a list of funding/priority requests to share with City Council in advance of the upcoming work session. Said list was ed to City Council on June 14, 2018 and is attached for consideration. To aid in the work session and best utilize Council s time, the River Commission would like to focus on their three most important funding requests/issues. The River Commission s top three priorities/discussion topics are listed below. Information regarding said topics is attached for your review. -Watershed health public outreach/awareness campaign, access mapping, riparian plantings guide/pamphlet, etc. ($5,000, includes existing RiverFEST funding) -Adoption of recommended riparian setback -Three Mile Confluence comprehensive planning and design project ($50,000 estimate) No action required at this time. Staff Report Page 1 of 7

4 Priorities/Recommendations for City Council Since City Council has begun discussions regarding the budget for 2019, the River Commission would like to make you aware of various funding requests and other recommendations. At our meeting on June 6 th, we prioritized projects we have been working on and/or issues we have addressed over the last year. We look forward to discussing these matters with you further at our upcoming work session on July 19 th. The River Commission requests 2019 funding for or adoption of the following: -Watershed health public outreach/awareness campaign, access mapping, riparian plantings guide/pamphlet, etc. ($5,000, includes existing RiverFEST funding) -Adopt recommended riparian setback ($N/A) -Three Mile Confluence comprehensive planning and design project ($50,000) Please fund the following projects previously discussed: -Restoration/revegetation projects Two Rivers Park Shoreline Restoration project Fund Veltus shoreline erosion control Three Mile Confluence erosion control Revegetate/restore former Raymond property Revegetate areas disturbed with Red Mountain Passage Pedestrian Bridge Other projects the River Commission continues to work on but is not request funding for at this time Construction of additional boat ramps on City owned property Roaring Fork River south of the airport ($100,000) Colorado River along Devereux Road ($222,000) River corridor masterplan ($50,000±) Staff Report Page 2 of 7

5 City of Glenwood Springs River Commission Public Outreach Strategies and Options Instagram account and other platforms Ubiquitous messaging Landscaping workshop (possibly coordinated by Roaring Fork Conservancy) City sponsored riparian restoration showcase project (potentially Raymond property) Drains to creek marking/artistic marketing of storm sewer inlets around town Radio spots/interviews (KDNK, KMTS, etc.) Stickers Reduction of pesticides/herbicides in riparian areas Turf removal incentives Riparian landscaping design services (currently provided by Roaring Fork Conservancy, Project Re-Wild in Vail) Lunch with the locals speaker series Movie nights Editorials Video shorts Additional sampling to determine problem areas s Identification of storm sewer outlets along rivers Staff Report Page 3 of 7

6 February 28, 2018 Mayor Gamba and City Council 101 West 8 th Street Glenwood Springs, CO Attn: Trent L. Hyatt, Senior Planner/River Commission Staff Liaison RE: Recommended city code revision for riparian setbacks Honorable Mayor and City Council, At our February 7 th, 2018 meeting, the River Commission voted unanimously to recommend City Council adopt a 50 foot riparian setback for incorporation into the re-draft of the land development code. The recommended language is attached for your review. As you know, the streams that flow through our beautiful City significantly benefit our regional economy by supporting countless jobs and these areas provide immeasurable positive social impacts for our citizens and visitors alike. Each year, the River Commission, Roaring Fork Conservancy, and rafting/ fishing guides have observed new and continuous disturbances within the riparian zones adjacent to both the Roaring Fork and Colorado Rivers within the City (pictures attached). While the City has a 30 foot setback from ordinary high water mark requirement for structures and fill, this regulation does not limit the removal of riparian plant species which are vital to the ecosystem. The River Commission has been discussing this topic for a couple years now and provide this recommendation after thorough review of industry best practices as well as regulations from numerous other neighboring municipalities and counties. We feel the recommended setback strikes a balance between the space/ area required for riparian zones to function efficiently while still providing private owners a means to enjoy their investment in riverfront property. We respectfully request that you incorporate the new setback into the re-draft of the development code currently under consideration. Also, attached is a letter in support of the setback from Roaring Fork Conservancy. Please let us know if you would like additional information or a work session to discuss the matter further. Regards, Brendon Langenhuizen, Chairman Glenwood Springs River Commission Staff Report Page 4 of 7

7 February 7, 2018 River Commission Recommendation for Adoption by City Council (d)(25) Conservation of Waterways a. Purpose The purpose of this Subsection (d)(25) is to conserve and promote the health of the City s riparian ecosystems and water quality by maintaining a functional natural buffer adjacent to waterways. i. No improvement, building, structure, excavation, dumping, clearing of native vegetation, or backfill shall be placed, built, undertaken or approved within a fifty foot setback area horizontally from the ordinary high water mark of any river or live perennial stream. ii. Within the fifty foot setback, no live vegetation may be removed except for species listed on the Garfield County noxious weed list, Chinese Elm, or Siberian Elm when replaced with appropriate plant species. The Director has discretion to permit the removal of native vegetation, not to exceed 10 percent of the area of the setback, to allow a property owner private access to and personal enjoyment of the waterway. This shall not be interpreted to allow for permanent structures of any kind within the setback area. The Director may also reduce the setback for bridges, public paths for non-motorized use, public open space areas, wildfire mitigation activities, irrigation structures, flood control and erosion protection devices, or upon demonstration by the applicant that such reduction shall not result in water quality degradation, stream bank erosion, or a reduction in the function and quality of a riparian area or wetland. iii. No chemical treatments, including but not limited to fertilizers, pesticides, and/or herbicides, are permitted with the fifty foot setback area except for the removal of above listed noxious weeds in compliance with applicable regulations. Staff Report Page 5 of 7

8 Table 1 Implementation of riparian protections also hold significant economic value. Healthy riparian areas: Reduce the cost of drinking water treatment by filtering sediment and other pollutants. The City of Glenwood Springs currently has a secondary drinking water intake on the Roaring Fork River near Veltus Park. Prevent property damage by protecting against erosion and flooding. Erosive effects are nearly 5 times more likely on non-vegetated stream banks, and up to 30 times more likely on non-vegetated stream bends. 3 Increase property values by improving aesthetics. Several studies have shown that people will pay a premium to live or work near greenways or other protected areas, and this allows the developer to recoup at least some of the costs of not developing up to the stream bank. 4 Support the local fishing economy by maintaining high water quality for the Roaring Fork River s Gold Medal fishery. Support local river recreation (i.e. rafting, kayaking, stand-up paddle boarding) economy by providing scenic areas and wildlife viewing opportunities along rivers. 3 Chagrin Watershed Partners, Inc. 2006, Riparian Setbacks: Technical Information for Decision Makers. 4 Chagrin Watershed Partners, Inc. 2006, Riparian Setbacks: Technical Information for Decision Makers. Staff Report Page 6 of 7

9 Three Mile Creek Confluence Comprehensive Planning and Design Project Scope of Work Assume $50k engineering cost for site and channel impacts and permitting documents. Presumes basic bank reinforcement design is in place and maximum USACE requirement is a letter of no-rise. Otherwise typical City permit review process. Note: National Wetlands Inventory includes Atkinson Canal as PEM1Cx wetland. Assumes fairly basic amenity/furniture package with naturalized features. Does not include architecture or other building design services. May or may not require channel modeling, etc. Includes linear design and permitting process; would this require some form of public outreach effort? Task 1 (Scoping): Physical site evaluation/analysis, program evaluation, establishment of project requirements. Rapid wetland evaluation and FEMA boundary review. Development code review. Kick-off meeting, site visit, physical inventory, document review. Agency identification and initial outreach. Zoning and submittal requirement coordination. Site analysis with opportunities and constraints, goals, program definition and prioritization. Deliverables are memoranda and mapping. $10,000 (engineering collaboration, site planner, ecological services). Task 2 (Concept Design): Design alternatives with program layout, character analogs, concept grading, and materials. Initial channel design and evaluation. Stakeholder process but not public process. $10,000 (site planning and ecological services) Task 3 (Permit Document Design): Documents suitable for local jurisdiction permits: landscape architecture, engineering, and reclamation technical documents. Construction Access Plan, Demo plan, Site/Materials, Grading/Drainage, Bank Stabilization Sections, Habitat Restoration Plans, preliminary details. Wetland permitting if necessary (assumes straightforward approach to wetlands in canal). Relatively basic amenity package natural features. $25,000 (site planning and ecological services) engineering pending level of impacts in water stabilization is simpler than heavy amenity Task 4 (Construction Documents): Final project bidding and construction drawings and specifications. Letter of no-rise if necessary. $15,000 Task 6 (Construction Administration): Varies Staff Report Page 7 of 7