Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 10/20/1999. MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD SPECIAL MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE OCTOBER 20,1999 For Reference: Randy Fischer, NRAB Chair - 491-6303 Bill Bertschy, Council Liaison - 484-0181 Susie Gordon, Staff Liaison - 221-6265 Board Members Present Randy Fischer, Kelly Ohlson, Don Rodriguez, Jan Rastall Phil Murphy, Reagan Waskom, Nate Donovan, Bill Miller Board Members Absent Rick Harness Randy Fischer requested to go on record as apologizing for changing the previous meeting's schedule, to allow board members an opportunity to attend the Downtown River Corridor Implementation open house. He stated that the open house was a total waste of time, and that it was inappropriate to change the schedule to attend. Fischer stated the entire process was inappropriate to gain input on something as important as this. Fischer apologized to board and expressed his disappointment in the process. Staff Present Natural Resources Dent Tom Shoemaker, Terry Mahn, Susie Gordon, Mark Sears, Karen Manci, Edith Felchle Park Plannine: Craig Foreman, Jeff Lakey, Jason Stutzman CLRS: Marty Heffernan, Right of Wes: Ron Mills Guests Sally Craig, Planning and Zoning Board Matthew Ross, CSU student Rachel Larimore, CSU student Susan Hazaleus Pat Wilson Kevin Oltjenbruns Helen McHugh Richard Beniso 0 Agenda Review Natural Resources Adviswy Board October 20, 1999 Page 2 Fischer requested the Hazaleus property acquisition be moved up to 6:45 or 7:00 on the agenda. Review and Approval of Minutes September 15, 1999 • Miller: Page 2, 3`d paragraph, 1' word; change "the" to "they" • Fischer: Page 2, 0 bullet; change "... no evaluation of environmental impacts on any sites" to ".....no criteria for evaluating environmental impacts in the site selection process." • Fischer: page 4, 4a' bullet, last sentence; change "This is a forced fit" to "Putting the stadium at the Aztlan site is a forced fit". Gateway Project Marty Heffernan, Assistant to the Director of CLRS, said they were here to provide an update on Gateway Mountain Park. He said they would begin by showing the conceptual plan, and would then like to hear comments and/or concerns. Heffernan gave some background saying a planning committee was put together. The committee was composed of individuals from different interests, including State Parks, Forest Service, DOW, Sierra Club, Friends of the Poudre, Greeley Water, and others whose interests would be most affected by the project. Heffernan said the funding for the project is quite limited and it will be challenging to come up with the dollars. Jeff Lakey showed an image explaining that the whole land holding of the Water Department is 377 acres. The committee initially talked about various uses and what's important as far as the visitor experience, and came up with four zones. The majority (62%) of the site is zoned plant and animal and watershed protection where public access is not allowed. Public access in nature appreciation zones will be 34% of the site. About 4% of the site is zoned as "People Appreciation" where parking, picnicking, and programmed learning can take place. Heffernan added there is an economic component: being that the Water Department needs reimbursement. Lakey said the north and west boundary is primarily national forest land. There are a couple private parcels that abut the south and east boundaries. One issue is the proposal to enlarge Seaman Reservoir. The entire zone along the river has been severely altered because of the filtration plant and the existing road, houses and three brick buildings. Discussion • Donovan: So, there's no public access to shaded green areas? That's correct, there is interest in a trail to Grey Rock. The way that issue was left is that it is an option in the future, but is not being done right now. The Forest Service has issues about liability and public access. • Ohlson: As far as the proposed dam and enlarging the reservoir, there are many people ready to take legal action to prevent that from happening. It shouldn't be shown on future plans. We're trying to be sensitive to that, that's why it's dashed. It doesn't need to be there. Natural Resources Advisory Board October 20, 1999 Page 3 • Ohlson: What is people appreciation? It's intended to be an emphasis, a primary function, such as, there will be people playing ball, but there won't be ball fields. • Lakey: There is another subject to cover regarding access, how much parking and where the road would go. We agreed to some kind of a loop, with a park and a boat launch, which would allow commercial rafting buses to unload and exit. Then the road comes in along the river, we're proposing to relocate it and get it off the river. The road would loop around and terminate with a turn near the big building. There would be a total of about 80 parking spaces. • Ohlson: Did you build parking for peak or normal use? It was built for normal use, this will limit the use of the park. The committee's feeling was you could build lots of parking and always fill it up. • Waskom: How many picnic sites are there? There are about thirty under the shelter and thirty separate. It may be possible to reserve the shelter. • Fischer: Are there instances in other parks where we let others come in and make a profit? I'm thinking about the rafting guys. When this was first brought to us, we had hoped we wouldn't be building a park to accommodate commercial rafting operations. There was a lot of discussion, and the consensus was if it was limited to a small area it would be a valid decision. • Murphy: Are they going to pay a fee? There's still a ways to go about finances and passes. The community shows support to pay a park fee, but they don't want an additional fee to launch. There was a lot of discussion about safety in the lower canyon that was a motivator for this project. By designing the park in this fashion it should contain the impact on the entire park. Our intention is to allow the use, but have restrictions to protect the resources and other people's enjoyment. • Ohlson: My suggestion is this has be nailed down in writing and agreements. Who will be the operator, the City or State Parks, is still unresolved We intend to take this issue to Bill Bertschy and John Fischbach to get a read on where they're at. • Ohlson: Will there be concrete trails? Most will be semi -soft, there will be some dirt and some concrete, will probably be about six feet wide. Keep them to a minimum, and aesthetic as possible. • Ohlson: What were the issues or close calls? I anticipated a lot of conflict, but there really hasn't been any. We have to deal with the issue of rafters and boaters. There are no issues about the impact on wildlife, or any of those things? No serious concerns at present, the future dam is a concern. • Rodriguez: Looks like P&R has done a good job. Hazaleus Property Acqusition Tom Shoemaker said that at the last meeting this was talked about at some length. He told the board he wanted to give an update on the information and also to ask the board to take a formal vote on three questions. The three questions are: 1. Should we proceed with the acquisition? Is this an acquisition that merits our spending natural areas money? Staff recommends strongly that we proceed with the acquisition. Natural Resources Advisory Board October 20, 1999 Page 5 gave brief talks about Margaret Hazaleus, saying she touched the lives of thousands of students and made a difference in the community. • Fischer: Hope you understand that nothing said tonight is intended to say anything about your family, it's obvious they have made tremendous contributions to the community. There are some reservations regarding the naming issue. • Ohlson: We need to establish this is not about the Hazaleus family. This is not about war records and unfortunate illnesses, that's not the issue. I'm sure they're wonderful people, and wish I'd grown up in that family. But, I don't waver on my position and will take whatever actions are appropriate to make sure this doesn't happen. 1. Those dollar numbers should have been presented at the beginning of this process. It's a smoke screen; it's a 2-1/2% donation. Even at 20% it's not an adequate figure for the naming process. We've had this issue for a long time, nothing should be considered unless it's at least 50%, but I would prefer 80%. 2. There are fairness and justice issues. On a scale of 1 to 100, I'm at a 100. I'm not going to budge, it's not fair. It sets a horrible precedent for the future. I don't want to have to do this every three months, but I will, each and every time. We need a policy that's based on common sense and justice, one that's based on rational thought, and not war records. 3. We should be naming and honoring the land, the topography and the geology. We're not naming them after animals that used to be there, and they shouldn't be named after the people we bought the land from. I know about open space, I was there in 92, 95, 97 and now in 99. I don't want to name natural areas and open spaces after the people we buy from. It shouldn't be a popularity contest, we can't get caught up in the emotion of the moment. We need to focus on fairness, justice and common sense. • Rodriguez: In the three years I've member of this board this is one of the most difficult topics I've dealt with. The family has made incredible contributions to the university and the community. Often times the naming issue is dealt with in an arbitrary way. That said, I guess I feel fairly strongly about the association with natural areas and contributions to the community. Have you considered the affordable housing unit, that's a much better fit, could that be named the "Hazaleus Farms"? Hazaleus: I appreciate your point of view. I entered into a good faith negotiation. When I entered there was no policy that was presented to me. If there had been a policy that said "these are the rules," that would have been a business decision. This is really downstream to say "lets stop this transaction." It feels like bad faith. If a policy had been presented I would have been happy to evaluate it and make a decision. • Ohlson: I would propose to do a nice interpretive arrangement on the property, talking about the various contributions of the parents and the land there, something as nice as could be done honoring the family. That stretches my comfort zone, and is • more than a fair compromise. • Rodriguez: I would echo that. In the interpretative features, that would be a good opportunity to highlight and make that story. 0 S Natural Resources Advisory Board October 20, 1999 Page 7 • Fischer: I have to agree. I didn't join this board to get into problems like this when we're trying to do something good for the environment. This has to be addressed immediately. • Waskom: I'm not going to support the acquisition or the naming. • Fischer: Tom wants a direction from this board on 3 issues. I took a stab at the wording of four issues, three for Tom, and one for me. We can vote on them separately or all together. • Miller: Would prefer to vote separately, that better shows the board's feelings on the whole process. • Donovan: We can approve the affordable housing component, but not advocate it. This was a unique situation. • Rodriguez: I think it's a great idea. I like the creative approach to partnering. • Ohlson: I will be supporting all four proposals before us. This is the worst time I've had at a NRAB meeting. I believe I'm 100% right. I hope we never have to have this kind of discussion again. • Rastall: I would like to have more explanation of why the board is not supporting the naming. I don't feel comfortable supporting the third motion, and if the board is going to, I would feel more comfortable if it was explained in the third motion. The following motions were made by Bill Miller: The NRAB recommends that staffproceed with the acquisition of the Parcel known as the Hazaleus Property for incorporation into the City's Natural Areas inventory, The motion carried with seven votes in favor and one vote opposed. criteria for "affordable/attainable housing'. The motion carried with seven votes in favor and one member abstaining. NRD, and the NRAB that does not include naming the natural area of the acquisition after the family. The motion carried with five votes in favor and three votes opposed. The NRAB recommends that City, staff in coniunction with the NRAB immediately develop a clean well defined set of criteria for naming City natural areas 0 The motion carried unanimously. • 0 Natural Resources Advisory Board October 20, 1999 Page 9 was hoping to see things that equate natural areas to the City infrastructure. A lot of people are not there yet. This is a great opportunity to make that point and stand toe to toe with other vital resources. I'm talking about clean air, clean water, floodplains, and protecting scenic vistas. Those kinds of things are part of what you do, and that didn't come through to me at all. • Ohlson: The whole pitch is about money, and that's fine, but it should be more of a mix. This isn't to enlighten Council on the value of prairie dogs. Prairie dogs make the average person crazy. If you have fifteen minutes and spend time on prairie dogs and dogs -off -leash you're not getting the right point across. The other thing is, the map at the beginning of the presentation seems too green. We need to distinguish what we've already acquired from what we hope to acquire. • Fischer: It seems we're not putting the proper spin on the open space program. The citizens overwhelmingly support open spaces, it's the number one issue people are interested in. • Fischer: I think it would be appropriate for Kelly and Don to speak at the meeting. Kelly knows the history, he would be a much better spokesperson. Also, there's a movement among Council members that people who live outside of the city limits shouldn't be chairs of boards • Ohlson: The main thing is to get in and out, and thank Council for their support . It's not too important who's there, but we need to remember we're speaking for the board. • Ohlson: We've got to get away from the 1992 adopted plan, some of the people in the department are still stuck on it. We can't get stuck in the technical. In the future I would like to see a paragraph about trail placement issues • Fischer: It might be good to eliminate the paragraph about prairie dog relocation altogether. Part of what we're here about is to honestly communicate the challenges we face. • Craig: There are 2-1/2 pages regarding enforcement here, we've beat the ranger program to death. • Ohlson: When can we talk about this? It needs to be put on the schedule and it needs to go on the work plan. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Natural Resources Advisory Board October 20, 1999 Page 4 2. We had a lot of discussion about the naming issue at the last meeting. How does the board feel about the issue of naming it the Hazaleus Natural Area. Staffs recommendation is that we should do so. 3. How does the board feel about keeping open the possibility of the resale of approximately 50 acres to an affordable housing project in the not too distant future. The idea being that up to 50 acres of the property would be made available at a fair price for a housing process that has a significant affordable housing component. The additional information we would like to share is in the materials that were distributed. There are two letters of support regarding the naming issue, one from Dr. Yates at CSU and another from a citizen. The other piece of information we've talked about is there being some donation component. The family knocked $50,000 off the original price, which was known to be below the market value, but a formal appraisal had not been completed. Shoemaker requested Ron Mills do his own estimate and check with local appraisers. Mills has developed a conservative estimate of 2.05 million, the agreed to purchase price is 1.64 million. The actual donation value he is prepared to defend is $411,000, or 26% of the overall value of the property. There has been a lot of discussion about the issue of naming. There may remain some disagreement between staff and some board members. Staff feels the naming is appropriate due to; 1) a significant donation value, and 2) The natural areas naming policy, which has been reviewed by this board, and Parks and Recreation, doesn't restrict the naming of a natural area only to significant donations. There is no clear definition of "significant donation." The other issues are the naming after a historic place, or a member of the community that the community wishes to honor. This discussion will lead to a city-wide review of our naming policies. To the best of our knowledge, we're the only department trying to bring some order to this, but it's not as orderly as it needs to be. Discussion • Ohlson: To be fair, those numbers are not the way the deal was made. Now we have a new valuation, it would be very dishonest to show only that to City Council. That other value never surfaced in writing. • Hazaleus: I've known that value all along, it was a calculation that I made. We could have started at this point. • Rodriguez: It would be helpful if you had a documented appraisal. • Shoemaker: Yes, you're correct, that's how we presented it. I've been clear that we thought the actual value was much higher. Based on Ron Mills' and my experience in dealing with lands in this area, we felt that where the owner was starting from was a bargain. The reasons we didn't do an appraisal are, urgency on the part of the seller and the cost of an appraisal. Susan Hazaleus gave a brief talk about her family and their history. She said that in their day, her parents were stewards of the land and conservationists. Their wishes were for the land to be used in some kind of public way. Hazaleus introduced several guests who Natural Resources Advisory Board October 20, 1999 Page 6 • Fischer: We need to address the process. We heard about the naming issue after the contract was basically done except for the signatures. We are an advisory board to Council, that doesn't mean the property won't get bought. We're trying to decide what we want to tell City Council. We either agree or disagree with what's happening. • Ohlson: That's why you have closings in real estate. Things do break down, and staff was well aware that the naming was a potential issue for this board. • Fischer: There were a couple things missed when the policy was discussed. Part of the process is the public will be involved in the naming process. Also, if a natural area is being named after a person or family it has to go before City Council. In the criteria for naming, the highest priority is that donated land be named after the donor, the second is unique features. The lowest is after people in the community or subdivisions. The devil is in the word donations, the definition. It needs to be decided if the donation is a significant donation. • Shoemaker: Frankly, I agree with a lot of the things being said here tonight. I understand the concerns. In my opinion we met the spirit and intent of the policy. We did make it clear that part of it needed to come to this board and City Council. The bottom line is, when you get involved in negotiations the motivation at the time is to do what it takes to get to 'yes " in terms of an agreement. My motivation was not to aggravate any members of the board. • Miller: What is the reality of the north portion of the property being acquired by another part of the city? Is that a reality? Yes, with your recommendation on that matter. There is significant interest with those who do affordable housing. • Miller: Given the opportunity for affordable housing, we should acquire the property without the Hazaleus name, but when the affordable housing component is acquired it should be named after the family. We don't want to set a bad precedent over the issue of naming. • Rastall: Personally I don't feel it's the board's position to solve this situation, there's a contractual arrangement. We need to try to establish a policy that is more clear and forthright. I will support what's already in place, but it needs to be cleared up. • Murphy: There were agreements that need to be respected. For me, the only reason I'm sitting here is for my children. My kids won't care about where the name came from. The policy needs to be changed, but maybe it's not worth going after the policy that exists, it allows some flexibility. I would say agreements were made, we move forward and if we want to come back and take a shot at something more concrete we can do that. • Ohlson: My understanding is when things are going to be named after a person, they are to be brought back to us, that's part of the process. The contract has been signed, but it's contingent on Council approval. Sometimes you have to lose a battle to win the war, and we've got to focus on the big picture, long term. It's not about affordable housing, and it's not about one spot. I'd be willing to lose that parcel if it's going to impact integrity and justice. Natural history is more important than the one parcel we're going to miss. I'd lose that parcel in a heartbeat. We're focused too much on affordable housing, and on one parcel. I urge you to think in the big picture, not just small pictures. Natural Resources Advisory Board October 20, 1999 Page 8 • Fischer: You (Susan Hazaleus) have an exceptional family and piece of property. I hope you'll take us up on the idea of doing something to appropriately honor your family. New Issues & Concerns Roundtable Kelly Ohlson agreed that this item could be postponed until the next meeting. Natural Areas Program Update, Tom Shoemaker Tom Shoemaker said Mark Sears, Karen Manci, Edith Felchle and he will be doing a study session with City Council on Tuesday, Oct. 26. The format will be a presentation. There will also be time for comments, and questions and answers after the staff presentation. The impetus is to update Council, especially the three new members, with the Natural Areas Program. Included in the packet were some draft materials, and what we're passing out tonight is the final version of the program update that will go in Council packets. We're looking for feedback in a couple different areas. Discussion • Ohlson: I had something completely different in mind. I had no idea that the hours I spent on major changes were wasted. I didn't know it was ready to go to Council. I have no inclination to sit here and watch "show and tell." I'm not interested in a "show and tell" that's going to Council, I can watch that on TV. We've asked for things to come to us early enough for input, even if we are the lowly NRAB. I'll just save my time, there are many factual errors and incorrect assumptions. I was prepared to give my suggestions, but I'm not going to waste my time on "show and tell". I would like to hear your suggestions and request that you stay. Well, a big one would be why are we the only ones that are funding everything out of their capital projects, when staff for other departments is funded out of the general fund. Why are we not at the trough like the others? • Fischer: I also thought when we got these draft materials that we'd have a chance to weigh in. I thought 1 was clear about that at the Natural Areas Committee meeting. This is important, I'll stay all night if I have to. How would you like to proceed? The board decided to go with hearing the presentation and then providing their comments. Mark Sears made the presentation. • Ohlson: We need to make it clear that protecting 25,000 acres is our goal based on the structure plan. It could be interpreted that we have acquired 25,000 acres. It's unclear that our goal is protecting 25,000, and that we haven't acquired them. • Ohlson: My suggestion is to leave out the dogs -off -leash information. You have three new Council members who don't support dogs -on -leash. • Waskom: The graphs need to be more readable. • Rodriguez: Something unique to power point is the animation aspect, should use the power of the tool more. My biggest concern is I feel very strongly that natural areas are part of the fabric of the community and go way beyond the "warm and fuzzy." I