Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2017 06 14

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Open Space Advisory Board Minutes May 10th, 2017 Page 3 of 6 VIII. Discussion Item: Review and Revise Updated Draft Acquisition Table & Next Steps It was Helen and Ember's impression that the document OSAB presented to Council at the special session in February may have caused some unnecessary confusion, so the two of them spent some time re -thinking the information's format and organizing the information into spreadsheets. Ember shared a sample spreadsheet for review, with the idea that ultimately each candidate property would get its own information spreadsheet for quick reference. Jim asked for a definition of "fee simple," a term which is repeated frequently in these documents. Ember defined it as an outright purchase of land. Jim commented that OSAB should back off fee simple as a suggestion for property like the Philips land. Mike agreed. Ember commented that for the Council Packet there had been discussion to start off strong, with the full fee simple being often an idealized first choice, knowing it might ultimately be impossible for some properties, and then listing the second option. Graeme commented that OSAB doesn't have the wherewithal to evaluate the history and future issues associated with parcels and recommending fee simple is fine, given the board's knowledge base. Laura agreed with this. Mike commented that one cause of his hesitation about the Philips land is that he doesn't know its current status, since it is private and OSAB hasn't been invited to visit it, wondering if it is really all that high- quality for open space. Laura, Fiona, and Graeme pushed back on this, saying the parcel is so large that it has inherent value. Laura liked the idea of OSAB having a binder with a single spreadsheet for each candidate property. She added that if other people/groups want to add other information for their own binders, they can interleave their own property spreadsheets, or order them to their own criteria too. She felt this format allows for nice flexibility. Fiona thought the spreadsheet format itself could be improved, but she did like the idea of single page for each property. She added that she would like a single one-page summary/ranking for the properties, too. She suggested the summary could sort parcels into high priority/ low priority, or into commercial/non- commercial properties. Fiona volunteered to edit the spreadsheet. The board agreed it could possibly be cleaner and agreed a little refining of the format was welcome. Mike re -iterated that he felt that the board should take "fee simple" off Philips and other commercial properties. Fiona and Jim agreed. Mike felt this makes OSAB lose credibility, and the board should concentrate on easements and dedications. Mike commented that this is a chance to jump out in front of commercial development before specific plans get proposed. Laura commented that she would like to table the discussion of fee simple vs. other acquisition strategies until the next round of performing the property -ranking exercise, since this current draft has already been seen and discussed by council. Jim reminded the board of the Council's apparent hot -button issues: commercial properties being on the list, integration with the Small Area Plans, buffers properties, and the Xcel property. Jim reported that he spoke with a neighbor of the Xcel property and found that the immediate neighbors don't know anything about potential environmental concerns about the land. He wanted to know where the environmental report for this land is. Joe explained that Xcel would like to sell the land, 4