HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 03/06/2002E
MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
281 N. COLLEGE AVE.
March 6, 2002
For Reference: Randy Fischer, NRAB Chair -
226-5383
Ray Martinez, Council Liaison -
484-0181
Mark Sears, Staff Liaison -
416-2096
Board Members Present
Kelly Ohlson, Reagan Waskom, Steve Ryder, Nate Donovan, Linda Knowlton, Don
Rodriguez, Randy Fischer
Board Members Absent
Phil Murphy
Staff Present
Natural Resources Dent: Terry Klahn, Mark Sears, Michelle Pawar, Edith Felchle, Sue
Kenney, Zoe Shark
Advance Planning: Ken Waido
Transportation Planning: Mark Jacson
Guests
Jerry Kaltenhaus, citizen
Agenda Review
No changes.
NRD Staff Introductions
Edith Felchle, Sue Kenney and Zoe Shark provided the board with brief professional
backgrounds, including the talents and experience they individually bring to the natural
areas education program. Board members introduced themselves, and were provided an
opportunity to ask questions of staff.
City Plan Update Process, Ken Waido and Mark Jackson
Ken Waido introduced Mark Jackson. Jackson is the project manager for the
Transportation Master Plan update. Waido is the project manager for the City Plan
update, and will be working closely with Jackson.
Donovan: Is the Transportation Master Plan the same as the Master Streets Plan? No,
but we do consider the street plan the cornerstone of the Master Transportation Plan.
Natural Resourcestvisory Board •
March 6, 2002
Page 2
• Knowlton: Attachment B lays out a two step process, the first part being finished
before you start on the second part. Does that mean the GMA boundary questions
will be answered before part two is started. Many issues ofpart 2 are dependent upon
what's decided in the first part.
• Knowlton: Will the Citizen Advisory Committee be involved? Yes, if there is one.
That's a decision Council will make.
• Ohlson: Do you think there should be one? It worked last time.
• Fischer: How do you see that committee? I understand that Council will set direction,
but they'll probably leave it up to you on how the committee is formed, and how the
meetings will be conducted. We may do the logistical stuff, but it's going to be a
Council decision as to who is on the committee.
• Knowlton: Is there any time frame scheduled for deciding if there will be a
committee? It needs to be real soon. We'll be going to Council in the next few weeks
with a skeletal citizen participation plan.
• Ohslon: I've heard there may be twenty-one people, one from each board, and two
from each council member. Board members have a certain status, they are usually
experts in certain areas. They can be viewed as intimidating to other citizens. The
boards will be intimately involved in the process, but we haven't made any decisions.
• Donovan: Maybe there's a difference between appointing board members as a
representative from the board, and allowing board members to serve. That might
change the dynamics.
• Ohlson: I wonder why the City pays so much money on consulting, must we do that?
I'm more impressed with City staff than with consultants? We have more on our
plates than City Plan update. It's just a matter of staff resources.
• Sears: It's a resource issue. My staff is maxed-out too.
• Ohlson: The population number issue is interesting. I don't think that's a key
question. No one I know is for setting a number. The key is what's a rational
geographical boundary. Communities have every right to set rational boundaries.
• Ryder: Back to the use of consultants. Sometimes the citizens talk to consultants, and
the comments are filtered into a report by the consultants. It can get clunky. Some
filters are better than others.
• Ohlson: You're right. What came from the river charette had to be corrected, staff
agreed.
• Waido: After the I-25 process what bothered me the most was getting to the end of
the process and people getting up and saying they didn't have adequate ability to get
involved. If we do this process right we might have people say I don't agree with the
politics, or the conclusion, but I had a chance to put my two cents worth in. It's not a
consensus building process, it's an informed consent process.
• Ohlson: Even if you do everything perfect there will be those who will say they were
left out. We could have done the I-25 thing differently. That's why we're doing all of
this. I don't want to get to the end of an eighteen month process, and have those
types of concerns and comments.
• Fischer: Has the rfp gone out for the consultants? No.
Natural Resources#dvisory Board •
March 6, 2002
Page 3
• Fischer: There's no mention of going back over the natural feature policies. It's not
in there right now. Michelle's office wants to update those during the process.
• Fischer: It needs to be revisited. This is probably the most important thing we'll do as
a City in the next fifty years. I like the idea of board member involvement. Board
members are appointed by Council because of professional, and other types, of
expertise. We bring free consulting services to the City. One of the things that
worries me is how do you involve citizens with less understanding of the issues, and
have them work with planners. I see the board members being intermediaries between
those two groups, especially if you have citizens with special interests. I hope we
don't go down a track where we're catering to vested interests on the advisory
committee. Even if you're not appointed to the committee, you will be weighing in as
a board. There haven't been any decisions made yet.
Hazaleus Discussion/Recommendation
Randy Fischer said that at the last work session we talked about the possibility of sending
a recommendation to Council in terms of if the development project would be retained as
a natural feature, or spun off as a development parcel.
Discussion
• Ohlson: We had no idea it wasn't going to be all affordable housing. Phil and I, and
others, thought it would be a housing authority project.
• Waskom: It wasn't represented either way. It was presented that it would be sold to
the housing authority.
• Fischer: The discussion is, do we send a recommendation now. Staff is going to
make it's recommendation based on if a hawk comes back and nests in a tree. There
ought to be a better evaluation criteria. If appropriately restored, the entire property
can be excellent wildlife habitat. We should have it recorded that we are in favor of
retaining the entire Hazaleus property. We as a board, can recommend that it not be
considered for development, but be retained as a natural area piece.
• Waskom: When the natural area was purchased there was some understanding we
didn't want that piece. I think there is a good faith issue in terms of the housing
authority. We need to make sure we're operating in good faith. I would like that
clarified.
• Knowlton: Wouldn't it be more effective is we waited till something was going to
happen. It could be years, there could be a new council, or new city manager. Our
letter could be lost, I just don't see much point in doing it now.
• Fischer: The reason I thought it might be a good idea to do it now is there is a lot of
misunderstanding. With the passage of time people have forgotten what this board's
position was. We should help them out and reiterate the position of this board
through a memo. Greg Byrne thought the board was not in favor of buying the
property. We did approve it. It was not unanimous. I was one of the strongest
supporters for the acquisition. I think it would be beneficial to set the record straight
as to what the board would recommend.
Natural Resourcestisory Board •
March 6, 2002
Page 4
• Ohlson: This is one those things that the organization ought to learn from, and make
sure it's not repeated.
• Waskom: I'd like to see it stay a natural area, keep it and restore it. But, I want to
make sure we do what we said we'd do.
• Ohlson: In all fairness, we have honored our commitment, and an extension.
• Sears: It's not that they haven't wanted to buy it. With the presence of the hawk, and
the question of the wetlands, they've held off. There is the specific issue of the hawk
but there are the broader issues of the site in general.
• Knowlton: What if the hawk doesn't come back?
• Sears: It's up to staff. Will the housing authority want the land, you bet.
• Knowlton: Wouldn't that be the time to weigh in?
• Fischer: It's irrelevant if the hawk comes back or not. The potential for a hawk nest
is there. Even setting that aside, this is still a site we've decided to go ahead and keep
as a natural area.
• Sears: We need to make a decision in the near future. If it's not going to
development, we need to get in there and restore the site.
• Ohlson: There could be 90 units that have nothing to do with affordability.
• Donovan: I agree that we thought there would be a certain amount of time. But, I
think it should stay as it is, hawk or no hawk. The recommendation of the City staff
is that it is suitable for sale to the housing authority. That was the deal.
• Rodriguez: I've come full circle. There are certain aspects that are appealing, the
idea of cluster development in the community. The separator has a lot of appeal.
• Pawar: I'd like to add some clarification. As far as the decision process, we would
assert ourselves strongly. We're waiting for the hawk input, but it doesn't mean our
recommendation will be contingent on the hawk. If it doesn't return, we'll go out and
re-evaluate. The decision will be made in the service area, but we will have a strong
role. I don't want you to think the decision is out of our hands.
• Ohlson: Is there any possibility there's an equivalent number of lands that are less
valuable, that be more appropriate for affordable housing.
• Waskom: Does City management and Council understand that we value the property
for natural area, and we're not in a hung to sell.
• Fischer: I wanted to weigh in before it went to Council. It's another example of how
this board is marginalized by certain staff. We have people in City staff who have a
complete misunderstanding of the involvement of this board.
• Ohlson: We can all chew on this for a month. Do we lose anything by waiting a
month?
• Waskom: I'm in favor of going on the record.
• Knowlton: I'm opposed to an empty gesture. This resolution says it's valued for
wildlife habitat and it's desirable for the natural areas program.
The next NRAB Natural Areas Committee meeting will be held at the Hazaleus property.
Natural Areas Long Term Funding Strategy
The Board had a lengthy discussion on this item. This discussion will be continued at the
Natural Resourcestvisory Board •
March 6, 2002
Page 5
Wednesday, March 20 NRAB work session.
Future Agenda Items
March 20: Pollution Prevention Program Update
Rolland Moore Park Master Plan
Fossil Creek Park
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the February 6, 2002, meeting were unanimously approved as written.
Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50.