Loading...
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.