HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 02/24/1992PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
• February 24, 1992
Gerry Horak, Council Liaison
Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board
members present included: Chairman Bernie Strom, Vice Chairman Lloyd Walker, Jan Cottier,
Joe Carroll, and Rene Clements -Cooney. Members O'Dell and Klataske were absent.
Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul
Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Kirsten Whetstone, Steve Olt, Mike Herzig, Kerrie Ashbeck,
Ted Shepard and Georgiana Taylor.
Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily correct since
none signed in.
AGENDA REVIEW
Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included:
Item 1 - Minutes of the December 16, 1991 and January 27, 1992 Meetings; Item 2 - Clarendon
Hills Subdivision, 5th Filing, 1st Replat, Final, 035-86M; Item 3 - (Continued 3/23/92); Item 4 -
South Fort Collins Veterinary Center PUD, Final, #46-91A; Item 5 - (Continued 3/23/92); Item
6 - Housing Authority Maintenance Facility PUD, Preliminary and Final, #28-89A; Item 7 -
Dunn Elementary School Addition/Remodel - Advisory Review, #3-92; Item 8 - Amendments to
Larimer County Zoning Resolution - County Referral, #8-92; Item 9 - Cameron Park
• Annexation and Zoning, #52-91A.
The Discussion Agenda included: Item 10 -.Laurel School Demolition and Reconstruction -
Advisory Review, 059-91; Item 11 - Blevins Subdivision, Lot 9 PUD, Preliminary, #42-91A; Item
12 - Paragon Point PUD, Final, 048-91B; Item 13 - (Continued 3/23/92); Item 14 - Brittany
Knolls PUD, 2nd Filing, Preliminary #21-83G.
Mr. John Messineo pulled Item 6, Housing Authority Maintenance Facility PUD for discussion.
Member Carroll moved for approval of Consent Agenda items 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, and 9.
Member Cottier seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 5-0.
Housing Authority Maintenance Facility PUD Preliminary & Final 028-89A
Kirsten Whetstone gave the Staff report recommending approval.
Member Carroll asked what was on the east side of the building.
Ms. Whetstone replied that it was the Parks and Recreation drive -way and parking lot for the
ballfields, then there was the canal and Bryan Street and then on the east side of Bryan street
the Housing Authority project, a multi -family project. Behind that east of the multi -family
was single family.
•
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24,1992
Page 2
Jim Kline, Fort Collins Housing Authority, gave a presentation stating the reason they proposed
this was to stay in the location they were in, obviously, a matter of economics. They feel it will
be a very low impact. They have tried to make the building look nice and not be extremely
noticeable to any of the residences or any of the traffic going by.
Member Carroll asked why he wanted to do this.
Mr. Kline replied that in the past they had experienced alot of vandalism and they were trying
to get the vehicles out and under cover. They now have a fenced yard where the vehicles are
stored outside. Also, in order to stay in their present location, it was needed to produce more
office space that is needed.
Member Carroll asked if there would be any more vehicles than there are now.
Mr. Kline replied no there would not be.
Member Carroll asked about employees.
Mr. Kline replied no there would not be andy additional employees.
Mr. Eckman asked if they had seen the letter that Mr. Messineo presented the Board.
Mr. Kline replied that no they have not, the opposition was new to them.
Mr. John Messineo, 137 North Bryan, presented the Board with a petition. With 37 houses out
of a possible 102 surveyed, 92% of them do not want an addition to this project. It was set up
as a non -conforming use and is City Park Land and was the 4th or 5th addition since it was put
in. The last one was for 1200 s.f. and they came to the Board and was passed with the
recommendation that no additional additions be put on this property. If they grow and
prosper, then they should seek another location. They feel in the neighborhood that it is time
for them to move. He was also concerned with eating up parkland.
Mr. Ron Steinbach, representing the City Park Neighborhood Association was concerned with
the process with which this came about. He stated that this addition violates the policies set
forth by the West Side Neighborhood Plan. He quoted land use policy number one that states
that any new development or redevelopment will only be encouraged in selective areas and this
area was not defined as one of those areas. It also says the use of the LDGS should be
encouraged in transitional areas of the neighborhood and, this was not a defined transitional
area. The transitional areas are the buffer area of the east side. This was not an area that the
plan recommends this be used in.
He went on to say that the West Side Plan also identified what they call the City Park/Golf
Course/Grandview Cemetery as a potential district for consideration on the list of National
Register of Historic Places. The question he had was, was this kind of development compatible
with that possibility. That was one of the implementation actions designated in the Plan, that
the City pursue this. He did not see how this development relates to that. He stated that the
last section dealt with the Community Facilities section and there is a policy, number CF-11,
that states any new facilities or construction in City Park or Lee Martinez Park should be
reviewed with the adjacent property owners and neighborhood organizations. To him it was
no wonder that the Housing Authority did not know that there was a problem. No one came
0
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24, 1992
• Page 3
out to talk to them about it. He went on to say that the plan says that projects that diminish
open space significantly, increases the size of the maintenance facility, or detracts from the
historic character of City Park should be avoided. Based on these considerations, he saw the
development as inappropriate and out of the bounds of the West Side Plan, which is an element
of the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Nancy Gray, 110 Fishback stated she has lived in this house since 1965, spoke on the
historic perspective of the neighborhood. She also spoke on the mixed use of the neighborhood
how the neighborhood was deteriorating and the disorganization of the neighborhood. They
worked very hard to get the area down zoned from multi family zoning and organized. She
stated that they like the Housing Authority. When the human resources building was built in
the middle 70's, people objected because it was going on parkland. At that time she was on the
City Council and met with several people and talked about the importance of having a Housing
Authority, having human resources. At that time, people were told that was all that was going
into that area. Everyone knew that with the fragile nature of the neighborhood, the only
anchor they had was City Park, so they went along with it. The building was compatible with
the neighborhood, there was no problem. Time passed, the car barn went up, the car barn took
some of the valuable open space, the design was fine, they got used to it. Then there was an
expansion to human resources, several. They were told at the time, it would not happen again.
There is no other park in the area, much of this park serves very high density residential. She
added that singly, none of these buildings are objectionable, they certainly appreciate what the
housing authority did for the neighborhood in terms of buying the trailer court. They have
seen since then, families moving in, home ownership on the increase. They want to continue
to see this happen. The cumulative effect of a little bit here, a little bit there is unacceptable.
The cumulative effect on the neighborhood is unacceptable and she finds that the quasi
governmental agency who expands on parkland, which is so valuable for "economic purposes"
is really not appropriate. She did not think the rational was sound and she thought that there
are other places they can park their vehicles and still use the existing space for office space.
Please do not eat up anymore of the parkland because it economically more desirable.
David Herrera, Executive Director of the Housing Authority, stated they were surprised and
somewhat shocked by the response of the community. They believed they followed the process
outlined by the City of Fort Collins, in fact anticipated that this would have gone to the Board
last month. This is the first they have heard of any objection and were very concerned by the
objections. He thought that it had been said that the Housing Authority has been a good
neighbor and wanted to continue to be a good neighbor in that the neighbors feel free to talk
to them about any of their concerns. They were not going to be expanding into parkland.
Presently the Housing Authority site is under the lease, a 99-year lease, at a dollar a year. The
economics are quite simple, that the cost of ground in Fort Collins and the cost of development
or even leasing have all been explored in other locations. The development costs for this
particular project is quite minimal and they thought it was in the interest of the tax payer that
to use existing resources, keep the operations consolidated and not split up maintenance into
one part of town and the management side of the organization stay where they are at. It makes
good economic sense to look at and pursue the PUD with the understanding that the public
would be fully apprised at what was going on.
Member Walker asked was the West Side Neighborhood Plan reviewed in light of this project.
•
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24, 1992
Page 4
Ms. Whetstone replied that this project originally came in three months ago. Staff routed the
project and all the plans to the Staff person who is in charge of the West Side Plan review and
she did not believe there were any comments at that time.
Member Clements -Cooney asked Staff to talk about why there was no neighborhood meeting
held on this project.
Ms. Whetstone replied that when the project initially came in, it was as a non -conforming use,
an expansion to a non -conforming use. They had some discussions with the Housing Authority
and Staff felt that a Planned Unit Development would give more flexibility in the review and
we were able to ask for some additional landscaping. When it originally came in as a non-
conforming use, it was not considered to have a neighborhood meeting at that time because it
is not required with a non -conforming use review. When it was changed to a Planned Unit
Development, the neighboring uses were looked at and, it appeared to be compatible. There
was discussion with the condominium association to the north and they worked with the City
for the last two and a half months on the plan and their concerns were addressed about
architectural character.
Member Carroll stated that his inclination was to table this matter. It seemed to him that he
had heard enough to cause some questions in his mind, especially due to the fact, for whatever
reason, there was not a neighborhood meeting, the inclination of the neighbors' statements
about the history of the project, that there would be no more expansions and so on. There was
also some merit in wanting a covered facility for the vehicles. There should be a little more
leg work done on the project before it comes back.
Member Cottier agreed with Member Carroll's comments and added that especially since it is
in for preliminary and final together and there has been no neighborhood input or very limited
neighborhood input. She was also troubled by the idea that the continuity is lost when we
continue to change Board Members and City Council Members and commitments made in the
past are lost track of and she would hope that we can go back and review the commitments that
were made with respect to expansion on this site. She hopes that something can be worked out
with the neighborhood because she appreciates the comments with respect to costing the tax
payers more money for needed facilities for the Housing Authority.
Member Walker stated that from what he has heard he was inclined to deny the project. First
of all a point was made about the West Side Plan not being followed. He felt that this was a
significant addition. He has trouble with non -conforming uses upon non -conforming uses. It
is inevitable that something like a housing authority, will grow as the City grows and at some
point you have to say it is time to move. He was inclined to think it was time for the Housing
Authority to get another site, whether it was to park the vehicles or change their operation.
Chairman Strom was inclined to table it for 30 days and see what happens. He was not
convinced that the expansion was appropriate under the circumstances. He was also troubled
about promises being made and lost in the shuffle and he would like to see a more thorough
discussion of that and get more into the evaluation of the West Side Neighborhood Plan that
applies here.
Member Carroll moved to table this item to the March 23, 1992 regular meeting.
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24,1992
Page 5
Member Cottier seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0.
LAUREL SCHOOL DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION - ADVISORY REVIEW. #59-91
Member Carroll indicated that because of the proximity (500 feet) of his home to the site he
would excuse himself with a conflict of interest.
Ted Shepard, Senior Planner gave the Staff Report.
George Galicia, District Construction Manager for Poudre R-1 gave a presentation stating that
this would be the first replacement school and would be funded out of the bond issue that was
passed back in November of 1990.
He stated that the uniqueness of this project as well as it being a replacement school was the
previous planning that has gone into this. Back in 1990, the question that had arisen then was
whether or not this school should be added on to, replaced, or whether they should be looking
at possibly an addition at Barton School. Because of the strong support the school board
• derived from the neighborhood of these schools and especially around the Laurel School, the
decision was made to go ahead with the replacement to the existing Laurel School. At that time
there were numerous meetings with not only the parents, but other representatives in the
neighborhood. That was how the decision was made for the replacement of Laurel School.
He complimented the Staff in the worksession giving the Board a synopsis of what the project
involved and he wanted to point out in reviewing their recommendation to go ahead with this
project, there were three areas that needed to be addressed. The first being that it was advised
that the final landscape plan include adequate landscaping and buffering of the existing homes
on Colorado Street, to mitigate the playground area and the future access drive connecting
Locust Court to Laurel Street. By shuffling in the last week, they were able to take that into
account, it was brought up at the neighborhood meeting, and what they have proposed is shown
on the site plan. They have changed the curvature of the access slightly, that provides for a
10 foot buffer zone along their property line. He also noted that along the west property line
there was also a 10 foot easement that was an open space, so actually there is at least 20 feet
from the edge of the driveway to the back yards of the residents along Colorado.
The second item the Staff had under the recommendations was that "should Laurel Street
become the primary access, the Board of Education consider constructing side walks on Laurel
Street from Stover Street on the west to the Laurel Street access street on the east on both sides
of the street to promote safe pedestrian travel". They would be willing to discuss and review
this with the City Staff and the neighbors to make sure there are safe walk in routes.
The third was that it was advised that "the Facilities Services Department of Poudre R-1 School
District continue to work with the City of Fort Collins Departments of Planning,
Transportation, Engineering and Parks and Recreation, Poudre Valley Hospital, and
neighborhood residents on locational and transportation issues relating to the future
neighborhood park, the Laurel Street to Pennock Street connection and the parking lot for the
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24, 1992
Page 6
Family Care Center. He stated they already have been in discussion with the hospital for quite
some time now. The park planning in this area has been going on for several years and the
Parks Department has been in touch with them at Poudre R-I regarding these plans and have
talked about numerous ideas that they have had. They would certainly invite the opportunity
to go ahead and continue working that way.
As far as working with Poudre Valley Hospital, they have been in discussion with them on the
possibility of looking at some land swapping issues that may work out to both of their benefits
as well as the neighborhoods in general and they will continue those discussions as well as
looking at adjacent land uses to the school site and look at the possibility of trying to acquire
additional property in the area for a school site with possible joint use by the park.
He felt that the recommendations by Staff were certainly issues that were deserving of further
consideration by the School District and they plan on doing that.
Mr. Shepard clarified that the schematic drawing that they had here tonight was known as the
B2 schematic and was slightly different that what was proposed and was at the neighborhood
meeting a couple of weeks ago, in that the private connection drive from Locust Court to
Laurel had been shifted. The schematic that was shown at the neighborhood meeting was
hugging that west property line. There was a slight difference.
Mr. Tom Skillman, 818 East Elizabeth, spoke in favor of the project and the conception. His
concerns were that proper planning with all entities get put in place so this would be a great
addition to the east side neighborhood. That the planning take place before any final decisions
are made with the school and Poudre Valley Hospital and the key thing was the acquisition of
some of the adjacent property that would really make this project fly. They want to have both
the school and the park and they want to have the Poudre Valley parking needs taken care of
and it can all work harmoniously in the area. He thought that they should eliminate any
parking that is adjacent to residential areas so there would not be any additional pressure on
the residential properties in the area. He thinks this is a great opportunity for the City of Fort
Collins to get that neighborhood straightened out once and for all. Get Laurel Street straight
on through to the shopping center like should have been done when they built the shopping
center.
Mr. John Knezovich, 1205 Green Street spoke about the Riverside Shopping Center and some
of the traffic concerns and how changes needed to be made. He stated that one of the projects
outlined in Choices 95 was a neighborhood park for the east side and it was desperately needed.
It has been passed and funded and currently there has been no identified park site in the east
side neighborhood.
He joined the architectural committee of the parents, the administration and the staff to work
on the site plan for the new Laurel School. As part of that process, he addressed the School
Board and talked about the site plan and has also talked to them about the City's advisory
review to the School Board:
He stated the people in the East Side Neighborhood have several goals, one of which is to bring
a quality new school to the neighborhood. He could speak for a majority of the people in the
neighborhood when he asks that the Planning and Zoning Board get the connections of Pennock
Place and Laurel Street. He also thought that the East Side Neighborhood believes very
•
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24,1992
• Page 7
strongly that a neighborhood park needs to be built. He mentioned that this school is on an 8.8
acre site and all the other schools built like this one are on at least a 10 or 11 acre site.
He attended the worksession and a couple of things did not get said. The students that are
attending Laurel School right now is approximately about 200 students. When the new school
is built, they will be combining Laurel, Harris and some of the Barton school. These students
will be bused either down Stover or Lemay to get the students to attend the new Laurel school.
Another item was that alot of the areas immediately to the north of the school are in an
existing flood plain. If you visualize the 8.8 acre site, the only place to put the school is where
they saw it pictured, because if you go north, you literally dive into a flood plain, which would
make construction of a school impractical unless they built it up above the flood plain
standards. The problem with the site is that it is located within 18 feet of an existing junkyard.
Also adjacent to the property is a facility that is used by US West. He would hope that as their
lease expires they will look to relocate their facility. He viewed that as a real opportunity for
the City of Fort Collins and, Poudre R-1 School District to find an existing piece of land that
might be developed as part of an expanded school site to bring this site up to a 10 or 1 I or 12
acre site. He thought this was going to have a great neighborhood impact from going to a
.school with 200 students to 550 students. There will be alot of traffic impact and when the
Board looks at the designs you will note that at best, it is a flawed traffic design. He thought
that the Planning and Zoning Board needed to advise the School Board on traffic impacts and
that they needed to be revisited and a better plan could be thought out, if in fact we all work
together to acquire additional land.
He closed with stating that they had a good start and were looking for the Board's input and
when this school opens in September of 1993 that they were not looking at an 8.8 acre site but
rather a major redevelopment on the east side of Fort Collins.
Bill Cramer, 1010 Morgan Street, voiced his concern on the schedule of the project. He did not
feel that the planning process was firm enough to go ahead until such acquisitions of the land
are made. He did not believe that all the ducks were in a row. He felt they had a good start
and have a good concept. He would urge the Board to walk the land and take a look around
at what they would see there. The neighborhood is in dire need of a park there. He felt there
should be more land acquisition done before they take on the next step.
Member Walker asked for information on issues around the land acquisition for parks and how
has that evolved and where does it stand.
Mr. Shepard replied it has been a long process. The East Side Neighborhood Park has been
identified in the Parks and Recreation Open Space Plan since 1974. It was also reemphasized
and made a very important part of the East Side Neighborhood Plan which was passed in early
1986. It was also taken to the voters as part of the Choices 95 projects. It was a pretty firm
commitment on the part of Parks and Recreation to purchase a park site in this neighborhood.
It was his understanding that some of the issues out there seem to be a willing seller situation
and that offers have been made and offers have also been refused. The City of Fort Collins
and the Parks and Recreation Department are very interested in purchasing a park in this area.
The exact configuration and the exact amount of acreage and the exact parcels that will be
purchased just have yet not been decided.
1 J
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24,1992
Page 8
Member Cottier asked if the School District considered trying to get additional acreage to add
to their parcel.
Mr. Galida replied that the School District is. They are working with Poudre Valley Hospital
on a possible land swap so that not only will they pickup additional land to use but the location
of the parcel will be more beneficial to both them and PVH and the neighborhood in general.
Also, they are looking at acquiring additional property, namely looking at the junkyard
property that was identified. They were in discussions with that right now and will continue
to pursue that and will hopefully be able to acquire more property in the area. One other point
that was made about the planning in general was that they started in 1990 with the planning
for this project and what you see here are the schematic results of the work. They have gone
through 15 or 20 generations of site plans, moving the building around on different parts of
the site to try to find the most beneficial location and the most flexible location so that if
Parks and Recreation does come across a park they want to put in, they can accommodate them
and have an entire park/school use that can be used together.
Member Cottier asked if the junkyard would be their major target.
Mr. Galida replied it was, it is adjacent to the school property. They are concerned about
environmental impact and they were beginning to look into them to see if there would be any
cleanup involved. They have talked with the landowner and are trying to make some progress
in that area.
Member Cottier asked if the parking lot is in the same place as the existing parking lot.
Mr. Galida replied yes.
Member Cottier asked if it had been expanded considerably.
Mr. Galida replied it was in the same location and he did not know the exact number of
parking spaces there now, but it is not a considerable expansion if it is any expansion at all.
Maybe from 45 to 60 cars.
Chairman Strom asked if they had explored moving the parking lot.
Mr. Galida replied, like he had said, they must have been through 15 or 20 generations of a site
plan. They've had parking lots and buildings moved all over the 8.4 acre site in about every
configuration they could think of. They have reviewed some of the plans with the City
Planning Department as well as their parent group at the school and the staff at the school.
They have had alot of meetings looking at various site plans. This option was the best option,
that would not preclude them from pursuing any site acquisition or park development, yet
would allow them to get the school in place as well.
Chairman Strom asked in the course of their site planning effort and also forward from here,
have they looked at and are they still looking at the possibility of taking their primary access
off of Laurel Street in the event they have more land to work with.
Mr. Galida replied, they had looked at several ideas on placing the school nearer to Laurel
Street and taking the primary access off of Laurel Street in a couple of configurations. One
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24, 1992
• Page 9
looking at it as if they had additional property. The reality of the situation is they don't have
the property right now. The property owners along the stretch of property right now are
located there, they don't have a large access point, they have a small access frontage along
Laurel right now. They looked at different plans involving using that small access there on the
present site plan, it's roughly 45 or 50 feet wide, enough to get a driveway access into the school
site. Locating the parking area near that area did have some drawbacks. It places it a little bit
further away from the school There is a change in grade between the school level and the
parking lot then and would be faced with a series of steps or ramps up out of the parking lot
as one option. Another would be that we change the grade in that area to build a parking lot
up to the level of the school building, which is very costly and creates a problem with the storm
drainage flow which goes down through that portion of the site.
Member Walker stated from a City perspective the new school is a good opportunity for the
neighborhood, however, going from 200 students to 500 students was a significant increase in
the intensity of use on that site. What we're seeing with this proposal was essentially more or
less the same size site. He had some concerns with that and the more intense use. The other
thing was that the City has had a park acquisition in the works for a long time and it seems
like this would be another opportunity for all these things to come together here. He thought
there needed to be more aggressive pursuit of the additional property. He thought it was
important that some of this property acquisition be dealt with. The whole issue of access for
the site with the private drive to Laurel was O.K. and there was probably some better ways of
addressing it, but obviously when you don't have the land you can't really plan for it and he
• would assume if there was more land acquired the whole circulation/access problem pattern
would be different.
Member Cottier thought it was a wonderful boon to the neighborhood to get a new school. She
thought it could really help move toward some of the things the East Side Neighborhood Plan
wanted. If was unfortunate that the timing did not fit and she thought the needs of the school
might out weigh the benefits that could be gained by sitting and waiting until everything falls
in place. She wished the parking area could have been moved, it would have enhanced the
neighborhood residential areas. She thought they should go ahead with the school plans at this
point.
Chairman Strom agreed with thoughts that the school would benefit with more space, not only
for recreational purposes but for circulation purposes. He was inclined to agree with Member
Cottier and that his preferred approach would be to come down as hard as they can in favor
of the City moving forward and the School District moving forward and pursuing additional
space. He did not feel comfortable delaying the school in doing that.
Member Walker recommended that this proposed plan for the school be sent forward with their
approval. He thought there were certain things that ought to be highlighted as concerns.
There were several in the Staff Report as to the final landscape plan addressing the
landscaping mitigating the homes along Colorado and the future access drive connecting Locust
Court and Laurel Street and addressing landscape issues there. Also, if Laurel Street should
become the primary access, they get adequate sidewalks. Finally, all the entities should work
together on this which would include the City of Fort Collins Planning, Transportation,
Engineering and Parks and Recreation Departments and the Hospital and the residents with
• the issues of the neighborhood park, the Laurel Street/Pennock Place connection, the hospital
parking lot. One that he would add would be an attempt made by both the school and the City
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24, 1992
Page 10
to move forward aggressively on this acquisition of the parkland so that'there would hopefully
be some coordinated planning between to get all these things done. He agreed with the
statements that the school should move ahead but wanted to see some of the other elements
move ahead in some coordinated fashion together with the building of the school.
Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 4-0.
BLEVINS SUBDIVISION. LOT 9 PUD - PRELIMINARY. #42-91A
Member Carroll rejoined the meeting.
Kirsten Whetstone, Project Planner, gave the Staff Report and a slide presentation,
recommending approval with conditions.
Kint Glover, applicant, stated this duplex consists of two three -bedroom units with 5 parking
spots on site with an optional sixth. He was sensitive to the parking issue as it relates to this
project and he is basically indifferent as to whether there are five or six. There have been City
studies that have been done that indicate that you need two parking spots per unit which would
put this at a total of 4 and they have an additional one which makes 5. He could make a strong
argument for an additional parking space at the sacrifice of some open area of some grass. He
thought he could also make an argument for five spots in view that there had been City studies
that have been done that two parking spots per unit was the required amount. He was
comfortable with either one.
They have excellent additional screening between this property and the property to the north
in the form of existing trees. They also have fencing along the north side, east side and south
side that would probably be a five foot cedar fence. He felt the use of this property was
already predetermined because of the 22 lots in Blevins Subdivision, fifteen of them are non -
owner occupied, two are owned but occupied by students that attend CSU, three are owner
occupied and the other two properties, an in house business, and the other a Christian
Fellowship. He thought the duplex was a more effective use of the property rather than a
single family home.
Emily Smith, Vice President of Prospect -Shields Neighborhood Association, talked about
neighborhood compatibility, parking in this project. They seek a high quality development on
the Blevins Court site which is compatible with and has the least impact on the existing fragile
neighborhood. Their involvement in the planning process on this project began on June 6, 1991
at the neighborhood meeting. They recommended a duplex with two bedrooms per unit and six
parking spaces as being appropriate for this site. They have consistently articulated their
position as to where students are the principle occupants of rentals, at least one parking space
per unit and one parking space per bedroom are required. Since that time their Association has
actively pursued a resolution which would adequately address neighborhood concerns. Their
concerns and recommendations have remained consistent. The present application proposes a
duplex with three bedrooms in each unit for a total of five parking spaces. The number of
parking spaces is not adequate. As residents of a neighborhood that is severely impacted by
parking, they know that parking space guidelines used by the Planning Department were not
• 0
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24,1992
Page 11
appropriate for student occupied rentals. However, notwithstanding the higher bedroom
density being proposed, the Prospect Shields Neighborhood Association would support this
preliminary plan conditional on the Developer providing at least six parking spaces on site.
They appreciate efforts made by the Planning Department, the developer and the Planning and
Zoning Board toward a compatible resolution of this infill project.
Robert Swanstrom, property owner stated he felt Mr. Glover had a very attractive and much
needed unit for this area. The area is zoned single family, but very few houses are owner
occupied. With the College being so close it is a very high density area but zoned single family.
The area had become somewhat of a run down area because of students parking on lawns and
in most cases, very little or no landscaping. He felt that it was way past time for the area to
be closely looked at as possibly a zoning change and combining some of the lots to get more
attractive, more useful use of the land. He felt Mr. Glover has taken the right approach and
had the right idea and was pursuing the right alternatives for this lot.
Member Carroll asked if he lived on the cul-de-sac where this is.
Mr. Swanstrom replied no, his property was immediately to the south of this.
Member Clements -Cooney thanked the Prospect Shields Neighborhood Association for their
work in this project and agreed that five parking spaces was not sufficient for this piece of
property given the traffic concerns in the neighborhood, parking concerns in the neighborhood
and would like to see the addition of at least one more parking space and also if possible
regarding the management of this property, that they try to avoid any parking on the yards
that seems to occur in this neighborhood.
Member Walker also commended all the parties involved in this project. He felt this was a
much better plan that they saw the first time. He liked the additional green space, the fact that
it is a duplex with three bedrooms versus a tri-plex. He agreed that six parking spaces should
be a minimum on this site.
Member Cottier moved for approval of the Blevins Subdivision, Lot 9 PUD, Preliminary with
the condition that there be six parking spaces rather than five and the conditions as stated in
the staff report.
Member Walker seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 5-0.
PARAGON POINT PUD - FINAL. #48-91B
Tom Peterson, Planning Director, informed the audience and the Board that Steve Olt, Project
Planner would be doing the Staff Report and Tom Shoemaker from the Natural Resources
Department would also participate in the Staff Report.
The final that was before them tonight was based on a preliminary the Board reviewed at their
December 16 meeting. The Board attached several conditions. The major issue that was going
to be heard tonight evolved around one of the conditions, the decision on the 9.62 acre
park/open space shown on the preliminary. The condition essentially left that open until this
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24, 1992
Page 12
meeting for Staff to make a recommendation to the Board. It involved criteria 14 of the
Absolute Criteria from the Land Development Guidance System. He wanted to be clear to both
the Board and the public that what was going to be talked about tonight was a policy issue.
They really have not used Criteria #14 that many times in the past. The debate tonight was
going to be on the policies set forth in Criteria 14 and the Board was going to have to weigh
that when they get to the end of the public process.
Steve Olt, gave the staff report stating that the Staff believed that request submitted by the
Developer fails to conform with the requirements of the Land Development Guidance System
because it fails to address the requirements of Criteria #14 of the All Development Criteria of
the Land Development Guidance System. The Final Plan did not address Criteria #14 as it
relates to the prairie dog town and birds of prey. That issue was deferred to the final PUD
approval this evening because of the condition of preliminary approval by the Planning and
Zoning Board. Staff was recommending denial of Paragon Point P.U.D. Final. If the Board
decided to conditionally approve the development then Staff believes it was important that the
Developer agree within a reasonable amount of time as specified by the Board to four
conditions for approval and would like to give a summary of those:
1. The Developer will prepare and submit to the City for consideration by the Planning and
Zoning Board a Habitat Management Plan that would address Criteria #14 of the LDGS.
2. There is a conservation/erosion easement identified on the plat and site plan along and
adjacent to the western lot lines of Lot 9 and 10 and 25-28.
3. It was understood and agreed that Lots 8, 9, 10, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 44, 45, 46 are maybe
subject to erosion by reason of the meandering Fossil Creek. That would have to be addressed
as to the City being held harmless from any responsibility or liability for losses or injuries
sustained by reason of said erosion.
4. It was understood that the Development Agreement had not yet been signed and must be
executed by the Developer within 30 days of this conditional approval.
Mr. Eckman wanted to make an addition to the last condition that was recommended in the
event the Board would determine to approve with conditions. As he understood it, neither the
development agreement nor the plans have been signed or approved at this time and if the
Board was inclined to that it ought to also grant a variance to the requirement that the plans
be approved.
Tom Shoemaker, Administrator of the Natural Resources Division, stated that the City was in
the midst of a very difficult issue that revolves around a policy interpretation relative to
Criteria #14. He was going to try and provide information that Staff has used to develop the
recommendation with respect to Criteria 014 on this development.
He went through the Staff members that were involved in this presentation and their
credentials which included himself, Karen Manci, and Rob Wilkinso*.
He stated that this was a difficult issue, part of the difficultly revolves around policy
interpretation. It also revolves around the fact that they had been gaining new information
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24,1992
• Page 13
relevant to this issue partly because of the review of the development proposal and partly
resulting in on -going efforts to improve their understanding of the Natural Resource data base
or the Natural Resources of the City of Fort Collins. As they indicated in worksession, they
believed that part of the problem with this issue had to do with process in that the Staff and
the Developer had not communicated well. They did have a meeting last Thursday and he
gained understanding of their legitimate concerns and he thought they gained some
understanding of the City's concerns. He still believes that it would be possible to develop a
Habitat Management Plan and a revised design for the park that would resolve this issue.
However, they have been unable to agree to work on that so they were here tonight.
As has been stated, the Natural Resource and Planning Staff did not believe the application
as submitted meets Criteria *14 of the LDGS. That criteria relates to species, the presence of
habitat for species that have been identified as significant and in particular need of attention
by the Colorado Division of Wildlife and it suggests or requires that some precautions be
incorporated into the plan to assure the preservation of those habitat areas.
They have reached the conclusion they have after extensive thought and Staff discussion. It
has been difficult and he would not want to give the impression that all the answers are in on
this issue. There was alot that was unknown and alot of uncertainty and he was going to try
to convey to them was the best information that they have to date.
They were addressing Criteria #14. Other City policies also relate to this particular issue, in
• particular, the City's Goals and Objectives address the issue of insuring that future
development would be accomplished as to create the least degradation of the environment.
Also, that statement goes on to state the policy on long-range ecological effects and that we
should direct growth away from environmentally unique land which could be shown to have
special value to people, natural resource, scenic, etc. A copy of the Goals and Objectives was
handed out relating to this.
The issue that the focus of the discussion tonight was on two species that have been identified
by the Division of Wildlife as significant and in need of attention. They include the bald eagle
and the ferruginous hawk. The bald eagle is an endangered species and so classified by the
Colorado Division of Wildlife and entered into the record the regulations that established that.
It is also established under federal laws and endangered species and entered into the record the
code of federal regulations that establish that listing. There will be alot of discussion about
the status of the ferruginous hawk. The ferruginous hawk is a bird of prey, it is listed by the
Colorado Division of Wildlife as a species of special concern. The list of species of special
concern was not a legally binding list of the Division of Wildlife. It was an administrative list
intended to highlight those species from among the several hundred in the state which deserve
special attention in their planning, management and research. Special concern was defined as
a native species or sub -species which has been threatened or endangered or could become
threatened or endangered due to low population levels.
The ferruginous hawk is also listed by the Federal Government as a candidate for the list of
threatened and endangered species. It is classified as a category II candidate which again
affords that no legal protection but signifies that the Professional Wildlife Agency of the
United States considers that this species may be in such straights that it needs to be considered
for addition for the list of endangered species.
•
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24, 1992
Page 14
In addition to the presence on these lists, the ferruginous hawk and the bald eagle has been
identified as a species of concern or species in need of special attention by the Division of
Wildlife personnel. On three occasions, on December 9, 1991, Jerry Craig and Beth Dillion from
the Division of Wildlife on a site visit with their staff identified that the species was of special
concern to the Division of Wildlife. On December 31, 1991, Walter Grawl and several members
of his staff identified to them at a meeting of the Division of Wildlife, that they believed the
species was in need of particular attention. Finally, in a letter received today, Walt Grawl, the
Regional Director of the Division of Wildlife stated that their belief that the ferruginous hawk
was deserving of special consideration. One of the reasons for that was the dependence during
the winter months on the prairie dog colonies as a food source.
The features of the site that make it useful for wintering habitat and feeding habitat for these
birds of prey are several. On the eastern boundary of the overall site, there are trees that serve
as perch site, those were not at issue with the present discussion. The bluff area included in
the site was significant for a couple of reasons, it presents topographic relief, which creates
wind updrafts to allow the birds to hunt very easily over the site, it also provides several rock
out crops which appear to be used as perches by the birds based on the finding of casts of
regurgitated material near those rock out crops. The Developer has proposed to protect the
majority of the bluff through a conservation easement on the lots in that area and that was also
not of particular issue.
Other items about the site relate to the prairie dogs. They were going to hear alot about prairie
dogs tonight and the focus really needed to be on the birds of prey. The prairie dogs provide
an abundant food source for the wintering birds of prey. The ferruginous hawk certainly
captures prairie dogs directly, eagles may do so, but they also exhibit a unique behavior where
they will pirate or take away prey caught by the ferruginous hawk and then consume it. In
terms of evidence of the importance of the site, they have been attempting to have observations
at this site and others in the Urban Growth Area since early November of this year. Either his
Staff or students working on senior projects from CSU have visited this site eleven times. Of
those eleven visits, on seven occasions bald eagles were observed and all eleven occasions,
ferruginous hawks were observed. They believe this was demonstrating a consistent and
repeated use of the site by these birds of prey.
In terms of other factors of the importance of the site, the site is part of a system within the
Fossil Creek Drainage which supports significant populations of birds of prey. As just one
indication of the relative importance of the Fossil Creek Drainage relative to other areas, they
conducted a survey of the entire Fossil Creek Drainage on February 1, 1992 and observed 14
bald eagles within the drainage and 18 ferruginous hawks. In comparison, they also conducted
surveys in other open lands. They drove from Ft. Collins to close to the Wyoming boarder and
they observed two golden eagles and two roughed legged hawk and one ferruginous hawk.
Similarly, they traversed the area between Ft. Collins and the Pawnee National grasslands and
observed three golden eagles, one ferruginous hawk and one roughed legged hawk. They
believe that this data, although there is only one data point indicate as they have heard from
anecdotal information, that they have significant populations of bald eagles and ferruginous
hawk using the Fossil Creek Drainage and included in that was this site.
As terms of the importance of the site he has mentioned the fact that the birds are 'using the
prairie dogs colonies. He felt it very important to look at the issue of how many prairie dogs
colonies exist in the area in order to understand what other options the birds might have if
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24, 1992
. Page 15
they were moved from this site. He went over a map handed out on prairie dog colonies and
their locations and the significant amount of prairie dog colonies in the Fossil Creek Drainage
and the use of these areas by bald eagles and ferruginous hawks as directly related to the
presence of the prairie dogs.
Staff has several concerns about this project as proposed. One of them was the loss of habitat.
Most of the site if not all of it is available habitat and probably used by the birds of prey.
Within the Overall Development Plan, approximately 86 acres of this habitat would be
disturbed or removed of this approximately 30 acres of prairie dog would be removed.
The concern over the 9.62 acre park relates to their belief that they should be attempting to
minimize the loss of habitat in order to meet criteria #14. Part of the issue was a question of
thresholds, how much habitat could be lost before we cross the line where the birds leave the
area, will no longer use the site. There are no reliable date which firmly establish where that
threshold is. Because there is no reliable data one way or another, they believe that a prudent
approach was to be cautious and minimize the loss of habitat. Thus their concern over the 9.62
acre park. The floodway area was proposed to be left primarily as undeveloped open space.
They believe that the development of the park within that area will not only contribute to
additional habitat loss but also to an indirect loss resulting from the increased human activity
associated with a developed park, thereby influencing or decreasing the use of other areas
proposed to be left open. They have discussed this particular issue with the Division of
Wildlife with Mr. Jerry Craig who is the Division's rapture specialist. He said that there are
. no guarantees. That they could identify a specific area that either must be maintained but it
was his judgement that the park would significantly decrease the ability of the birds to use the
site and in contrast if the flood plain or the open areas of the site were left undeveloped there
was a reasonably good chance that the site would be used by bald eagles and ferruginous hawks
in the future.
The second concern they have relates to the management of the other areas of the site that were
proposed as open space. They do not have written statements or a plan from the developer for
future prairie dog management or control or eradication. They do not know how much of the
site he would propose to leave as available habitat for the birds of prey and how much of the
site would be removed.
They also have concerns about human/wildlife conflicts. Prairie dogs were a mixed bag.
Certainly they provide a food source for these birds. They add diversity to the habitat. They
have alot of ecological benefits. There are certainly concerns about prairie dogs and people
mixing. The Division of Wildlife has clearly identified these concerns to them and they have
taken them to heart. Part of their concern about this development is that there is no specific
proposals included in it to provide buffer areas between the developed area and the open space
to try and minimize the conflict between prairie dogs and people. They believe in the absence
of some specific plans to manage this human/wildlife interface, that the likely result would
be conflict and the likely result from that will be a push to eradicate the prairie dogs from the
remainder of the site. Thus, removing a major habitat component for the birds of prey.
These are difficult issues, however, it is their opinion that the criteria #14 would suggest that
special precautions or plans be developed and incorporated in the proposal to deal with the
issues he has talked about. They believe that it could be accomplished by habitat management
. plan which would look at alternatives for reducing the extent of habitat disturbance, potential
'Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24, 1992
Page 16
options for planting trees or creating artificial perches to make the rest of the habitat more
desirable for the birds of prey. The specific design and layout of a buffer zone between
residences and areas occupied by prairie dogs and a variety of other measures that they believe
could be incorporated into a plan that would in large measure, meet the recreational desires of
the Developer, reduce the potential for conflict between prairie dogs and humans and assure
the long-term maintenance of useful habitat for the birds of prey.
They have recommended or talked about such a plan with the Developer and felt perhaps they
could work on that together. That has not materialized but they strongly believe that such a
plan would be useful and is needed to satisfy Criteria #14.
He talked about a place to start on the plan and what would they would want would be a
buffer area next to the residential areas that would be specifically designed to create some
topographic barrier between the open space where the prairie dogs would be maintained and
the adjacent residential areas, also that the plantings be selected in order to enhance perching
sites for birds of prey and that shrubs and taller grasses be included in the planting plan to
create a visual barrier between the area occupied by prairie dogs and the area occupied by
people. Prairie dogs prefer open areas and it is their belief that there are some possible steps
that could be taken to address those concerns.
He concluded by saying that this has been a very difficult issue. Their staff has worked very
hard to evaluate the information, come up with a recommendation that was, they believe
reasonable and based on facts. The process that has been involved throughout this has not bee
perfect, communication has been poor and that makes it even more difficult. He closed by
saying that all of them, including the Developer and his consultants have been working on this
and he would like to see them get together and work on this and see if they could come up with
a solution that would work for everybody.
Member Walker asked if the parts of the parcel that were designated as residential building
sites, were prairie dogs on those parcels?
Mr. Shoemaker replied that there were.
Member Walker asked if there were prairie dog habitat in the area that would be the
undeveloped floodway of Fossil Creek.
Mr. Shoemaker replied yes and showed a map of the extent of prairie dog population on the
site. He stated that there would be prairie dogs disturbed from the residential development
and taken to its most literal interpretation, Criteria #14 could suggest that any area occupied
by prairie dogs might be subject to limitations. They felt that was unreasonable. They felt that
the undeveloped portions of the site, which included the flood plain, offered a good
opportunity to maintain a balance of habitat without reducing any lots.
Member Cottier asked if -approximately 30 acres of prairie dogs would be lost in the
development and how many acres of prairie dog habitat remain in the development.
Mr. Shoemaker replied approximately 30 acres of prairie dog town would be removed and that
would be about half. There would be about 40 to 50 acres left in the area of the floodplain that
was not proposed for development or as a park.
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
• February 24,1992
Page 17
Member Cottier asked if they were proposing to remove as much as 1/3 of the existing prairie
dog habitat that was there now.
Mr. Shoemaker replied 1/3 to 1/2.
Member Cottier asked if the Colorado Division of Wildlife people give any opinion as to what
losing 30 acres would mean, did they have a position with respect to the loss of 30 acres and
how that would impact the hawks and bald eagles.
Mr. Shoemaker replied that the information they provided was that if was very difficult to tell.
There is the loss of habitat as one factor, the actual removal of the birds. The other factor to
consider was the influence of the residential development and the recreational development
which has a indirect effect on how the birds would use the site. It was his judgement that it
was very difficult to say where the threshold would be as far as habitat loss that's acceptable.
Mr. Eckman went through the documents that had been distributed to make sure everyone
agreed with the record and everyone had the same information.
Mr. Dave Osborn, attorney for the Developer, objected to the late admission of the documents.
They had been trying to get information from the City to substantiate their position since the
middle of December and here we are the night of the hearing and it was the first time they had
• been furnished these documents.
Mr. Eckman asked if they were requesting a recess to review the documents.
Mr. Osborn replied no, they were just objecting to the late submission of the documents.
Steve Human, TST Consulting Engineers, briefly talked about some misunderstanding there
were with the roads and access. The continuation of South Ridge Greens Boulevard was shown
on the original South Ridge Greens Master Plan and has since been platted three separate times,
first in 1983 and last in September of 1991. They have attempted through the proceedings to
show that the continuation of the road was the most sound alternative pertaining to land
planning and traffic circulation. Many options were investigated and discussed in the
preliminary PUD hearing. They felt as though the extension makes the most sense.
There also seemed to be some confusion as to the extension to Trilby Road and the condition
of South Ridge Greens Boulevard as they plan in the first phase of construction. He pointed
out that the extension of South Ridge Greens Boulevard as it crosses the golf course through
the first phase of development and continues on down to Trilby Road was platted on the plat.
It will be a full platted 54 foot right-of-way. The purpose of temporary fire access was it was
not their intention to pave this road down to Trilby at this time and that was why it was
termed a fire access. The reason it was termed temporary was that it was not planned to be a
permanent fire access, it was going to end up as a public, full width paved public street. Their
intention and are planning it at this time all the way to Trilby Road was to construct the road,
do final grading to which in places was in excess of 15 feet. They are building it to the full
36 foot width. The only things they are not doing at this time was paving it and installing curb
and gutter. Their intention was to use it as construction access. They have agreed not to use
. access from the neighboring development. They will have barricades installed at the north end
of the property to force construction access off of Trilby Road. At the time that the first
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24, 1992
Page lg
certificate of occupancy is gotten for this area, they will need full paved access, to the
barricades would come down for residential use. The barricades would go up on the street that
would not be accepted by the City due to it is not paved, however, the barricades would be set
up as such so construction traffic could still access from that direction. That was exactly the
same case for the loop road on the western part of the property in that it is platted and
designed to full City standards and will be built to standards with the only exception that there
will not be curb and gutter and there would not be asphalt paving.
r
He added that the conditions that those roads would be built to per their construction plans
were far and above in excess of what a temporary fire access requirements were and that South
Ridge Greens Boulevard extended down to Trilby Road will be a far superior road that Trilby
Road itself. It will be meeting City design standards.
Member Carroll asked that City Council had some questions as to the extension of the road to
Trilby and asked them to consider whether the extension and the completion of South Ridge
Greens and Trilby Road ought to be done now and the question they asked them to consider
was they mentioned that it was an intention to pave to Trilby Road but there was lots of
properties that were owned by the Resolution Trust Corporation, people who intended to do
phase 4 or 5 with the best of standards and one thing lead to another and they couldn't. Was
he saying that the road would be gravel without curb and gutter and when could they expect
the road to be fully paved and brought up to City standards.
Mr. Humann replied that what they had discussed with City Staff would be that the next filing
on the eastern side of the property whether it be one lot or 30 lots that the road would be
brought up to City standards and be paved to Trilby Road.
Member Carroll asked if he expected other filings to come in on the west side of Fossil Creek
before the one mentioned on the east side.
Mr. Humann replied not necessarily.
Mr. Jim Sell, Jim Sell Design replied he did not know for sure because the sequence had a lot
to do with the outcome of tonight and subsequent meetings on the issues and what direction
they may have to go from here. Ultimately there would be more filings on the east side.
Mr. Byron Collins replied that the eastern ridge was the most desirable part of the project. It
was his intention at this time to file that eastern portion or extend the eastern portion out to
Trilby Road as there next phase of this development. He expected that to occur in 1992.
Member Cottier asked Mr. Human about the extension and the southern part that would be left
in gravel would be adequate emergency access according to current fire department standards.
Mr. Humann replied it would actually be quite a bit more than that. It would exceed the
current requirements.
Member Cottier asked on the loop on the western part of the site, was that to be paved a short
distance in from Lemay.
Mr. Humann replied that the intention was to pave within the developed portion and also for
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24, 1992
• Page 19
a short few hundred feet to access the parking lot for the public park.
Member Cottier asked just east of the public park there would be barricades and it would be
again just a gravel road that was emergency access up to the north.
Mr. Humann replied yes.
Chairman asked how a barricade would be built that would allow construction traffic but not
other public traffic.
Mr. Humann replied that one way was to leave a gap up in the middle. Other ways was to have
two of they that are off set so that a truck could go around one and then another. Basically
the barricade was to let the people know that it is not a public thru street but as in any
situation, if someone wants to drive on that street they will find a way to get on it.
Byron Collins added that obviously that when you go into development you try to do the best
you can from the onset, to complete the road out to Trilby raises certain concerns as to when
were they going to complete Trilby Road. Was the City prepared to complete Trilby Road.
They know their project would cost approximately $150,000 additional dollars just to complete
the one phase. It was fairly cost prohibited to spend all of these dollars on all of these issues
• before you even get started on a project so the only other condition he would state was that
obviously once they start their second phase, which he indicated was his next intention, when
they start that then there would be inhabitants and people circulating on the extended street.
If they build a street right now in the very beginning of the project all the way out to
completion to Trilby, was the City ready to do the Trilby project and were we as a community
ready to police what amounts to a very extensive black top out to Trilby. It was a natural
situation for people to park, race and or do everything else. What they were trying to say was
that it was not prudent to extend it and complete it from a dollar standpoint and or
maintenance standpoint at this time especially in several months from now they would be in
a better position to maintain it and better afford it.
Chairman Strom asked if he would be the one to maintain the gravel portion until it is paved
and the City accepts it for maintenance.
Mr. Collins replied that it was in their and the City's best interest to jointly try to maintain a
situation that you would have out there from vandalism and everything else. It was in their
best interest to protect their property because it is obviously a valuable asset. They would
expect the City in turn as a beneficiary of the community to help enforce them in that pursuit.
It was easier to protect a gravel situation prior to a flat blacktop.
Chairman Strom asked about physical maintenance of the gravel road.
Mr. Collins replied it was definitely their responsibility.
Roger Prenzlow, Associated Brokers, representing the Luthern Church Extension Fund. He
stated Staff, since December loth was trying to protect the LDGS as if it were the holy grail.
• Their defense of that had become more important than the underlying facts or fairness in this
action. The Lutheran Church Extension Fund received this property in trust in the early 80's.
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24,1992
Page 20
Subsequent to receiving the property, it was annexed by the City. The City has taken several
actions which have tended to destroy the value and use of this property. The first being that
the Fossil Creek Drainage Study was done by Simon and Leah, under that study, the City opted
to take the least cost alternative. That alternative was in effect, placed the burden on this
property to detain 450 acre feet of water in a 100-year storm situation. There were three other
alternatives they did not take. This was least cost only for the City.
The second action involved the development of South Ridge including the golf course.
Historically this property was irrigated and the developer was acquiring 175 feet of water that
could still be used to irrigate the property. The irrigation for this property came across onto
the east ridge. When the City developed the South Ridge project, they destroyed the conduits.
The only conduits that remain were a couple of pipes that go across some drainage. They came
across this when they were trying to figure out how to get water to the ponds.
The third action taken by the City has to do with the denial of the final plat. The eastern
portion of this property was very desirable and upscale. The problem area was on the west side
of the property. In that area, there was no great redeeming effects, they have golf course
views, but the balance did not have anything. It was quite similar to the Brittany Knolls
project. He thought this was the same thing as South Ridge Greens, a joint development, and
the City paid the price ultimately. The same mistake was being repeated here. No one was
going to have to bear the burden of that except the developer.
In November of 1990, they had this property under a letter of intent to another corporation,
they asked what the environmental concerns on this property. He went to the Department of
Natural Resources and asked Mr. Wilkinson to tell him. He was very responsive and came back
and indicated there was a wetland property. They immediately addressed the wetland issue.
There were a number of contacts during that time and in no contact was there any other
environmental issue brought up there. That was the only one.
During the conceptual review the developer offered to the City, to donate sufficient lands so
the City could solve part of the problems with the South Ridge Golf Course. That would have
allowed for three and a half holes and allowed them to expand their driving range and allowed
them to put in a practice facility of about three short holes. That was not accepted by the City.
It was important to note during the Conceptual Review, while there was some discussion of
ferruginous hawks and prairie dogs, it was very limited. It had to do mostly with some area
that had to do with 5, 6 or 7 acres immediately north of Trilby Road on the lower end of the
floodplain. That was the issue at the time and that was what the Developer tried to address.
It was not until December 10th, three days prior to the preliminary Planning and Zoning
hearing that any issue of hawks or prairie dogs came to the table in any seriousness and as they
heard testimony this evening from Mr. Shoemaker, the City did not get the Division of Wildlife
on site until December 9th. That was pretty late in the process.
He met with the Division of Wildlife and the facts are all outlined in his notes. There in the
notes, he stands on them, he also took the trouble to go back to Mr. Grawl and ask him to
review them to make sure he had not taken any liberties with the data provided to him. He
found three areas he wanted to make changes. One was he said his graduate degree involved
birds of prey, he corrected him, he has a PHD in ecology. The second was that there was no
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24,1992
• Page 21
particular stress on ferruginous hawks in Northern Colorado. He indicated to him that was an
over statement. There was in fact some stress on ferruginous hawks and was taking place in
the Pawnee Grasslands. The third was that he stated 10 years, he would settle for at least 1985.
In trying to recognize that the 15 acre site that caused the delay and one of the Boards
conditions of the preliminary P & Z. Recognizing that fact, they had to go back and settle the
issue. They went back on site and they went with a number of staff members, Tom Peterson
was one of them. The gentleman of importance here was Carl Leonard, Division of Wildlife,
he is an area supervisor.
Mr. Prenzlow read Mr. Leonards comments they were that the concerns of the ferruginous hawk
were probable ill founded. They could and did sit on the ground. The specific area where the
park was proposed had been devegetated by the prairie dogs. The prairie dogs had obviously
moved onto the ground in recent years. In his opinion the 10 acre park site was not critical to
the hunting range of the ferruginous hawks. There was adequate range for them to move to
absence the prairie dogs from this site. Co -existence of this proximity was an unreasonable
expectation. Shortly after that, this dissertation by Mr.Leonard, Mr. Peterson and himself left
the property. They had some work to do and they got little cooperation from the Department
of Natural Resources because of the frustration created by Mr. Leonard.
He talked about an article from the Fort Collins Environmental Record. This article shows that
the Department of Natural Resources was actively looking at this site and actually published
• an article in mid -winter of 1990. This would have come out and published on December 10th
or about, the very time he was in contact with the Division of Natural Resources regarding
environmental concerns. It was a little ludicrous to say they have new information when they
had this information all the time. The problem he has was that they orchestrated this right
down to the tee. They orchestrated it immediately right before the preliminary P & Z because
they new full well if they would have done it in December 1990, the property owner would
have protected himself by removing the prairie dogs from the site prior to an application of
any kind.
He talked about timing and fairness and documentation that has been given out. He talked
about the management plan and what it consists of. Also the Transfort site, Brittany Knolls
and Portner Reservoir, which all have prairie dogs.
Member Carroll asked Mr. Prenzlow if he thought that the Habitat Management Plan was
needed.
Mr. Prenzlow replied that what he was saying that the experts at the Division of Wildlife did
not even have that and did not know how they would create it in two weeks.
Member Carroll asked Mr. Prenzlow about the 9.62 acre site and on the site plan and on it says
that no changes would be made from the present natural condition of the 9.62 acre park/open
space unless or until the Planning and Zoning Board approves such change. Was he hearing that
this area would now be developed as a traditional park or was this going to be left in its open
space.
Mr. Prenzlow desires to develop it into a park for humans. It was his position that' it was
• fundamentally to the quality of the development.
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24, 1992
Page 22
Member Carroll stated he was referring about the property directly to the east, which is 9.62
acres.
Byron Collins replied that the 9.62 acres was what was proposed as an improved park and
would have a drought tolerant but irrigated turf grass on it and the area above that was not
included in this site plan.
Member Carroll asked if he was understanding that City Staff was differing with him on that
9.62 acres.
Byron Collins replied yes they were.
Mr. John Hujsein, representing the owner stated that his understanding of the issue was that
they were before them tonight because of the 9.62 acres . He understands that the 9.62 the
Developer wants to irrigate it and the Staff wants it preserved for prairie dogs. That was the
whole issue. The other part of the issue was that there has never been an interpretation of
Criteria 014 regarding a prairie dog requirement or regarding_a wildlife requirement where
it has been done this way. He did not know of any example of it, he heard on one occasion
there had been a question of white pelicans and that the interpretation was that there were
white pelicans and they were on some list therefore something had to be done to accommodate
them. They also found that the white pelicans were not on the same list that the ferruginous
hawks supposed to be on as well. He was told that it began at that time and what happened
then was in regard to Criteria #14, it has two conditions, one is that there has to be a habitat
or nesting place and the other is that there has to be wildlife that is significant and in
particular need of attention.
The interpretation most recently given was that first if the wildlife was significant and in need
of attention, the habitat did not have to be very significant. If fact, it did not have to be
significant at all. How significant it was, was not really clear and it was the Boards job to
figure that out. He thought there should be a substantial relationship between habitat and
animals. There has to be a showing of how they are some how connected and that the habitat
had to be significant in relation to the animal and the protected. species. There has to be a
showing that the 9.62 acres of prairie dogs is significant to the preservation and habitat of
these animals. The first part of the question was that were the animals protected, are those
animals described under Criteria #14. He did not think that was very clear. They have asked
on several occasions for the City to tell them where the sources of information were coming
from. Who by name in the Department of Wildlife was going to put their name on this
conclusion that they are significant and in particular need of attention. Given the fact that
those words were not used, they may be some other word in the interpretation first of all that
is given and think that means that.
In regard to the Division of Wildlife, if you cross the threshold of wildlife that is significant
and in particular need of attention and concern. The next part of it was the habitat or food
source, what happens if you take it away. The answer to that is there is no reliable information
of what is required, that was the language they have heard tonight. There was two parts to the
regulation, one was, are these animals described by the Division of Wildlife as being those
protected under item #14 and then if you cross that one, he has not heard or seen evidence of
it. If you finally get across that one, what was the evidence of habitat or food source was
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
. February 24,1992
Page 23
necessary for the protection of that particular animal, what is the relationship, the answer was
that no reliable information about what was required. None the less, the requirement we were
going to have 52 acres of prairie dogs. Now 52 acres of prairie dogs, given that this is the first
time we have had a prairie dog requirement and given the fact that this is the first time
Criteria #14 has been applied in this way, makes if very difficult for the Developer to deal
with that.
The question comes down to 52 acres and where you are going to put the 52 acres. You have
52 acres of prairie dogs on it and there is one place in the middle of the 9.62 acres. He has not
seen any evidence to that either. He has asked for that. He wanted to know where the
evidence was with some scientific documentation about why this 9.62 acres of prairie dogs has
got to be in the middle of the park at that location for whatever reason.
If there was a question about the progress on this thing, the progress was reached along time
ago it we could figure out what the prairie dog requirement was. They were before them
because it was going to take someone who can make an interpretation of it because the Staffs
interpretation was they have crossed the threshold in regard to animals that are identified by
the Colorado Division of Wildlife are they thing that in some way may be harmed if they take
away the prairie dogs on the 9.62 acres and therefore, they were going to recommend denial and
if they get approval they want them to have a health care plan for the prairie dogs. It is now,
• the conditions they have asked for was a firm buffering and they want a trail system through
there. He has not heard what was to come of ferruginous hawks among houses and trails and
prairie dogs and given what was expected in this environment, has any one said what would
come of it, he has not heard that. He would like to know the wildlife biologist that would
conclude that given urbanization, houses on the ridge, houses over here, what would occur with
a trail system throughout the middle that it was a habitat for the bald eagle and that was
identified as a bald eagle habitat and should be preserved, he has not heard that. Especially
when you take 52 acres of 146 acre development for prairie dogs.
They feel that this project has the lowest density that anyone could expect and has
approximately half the area in open space. Of 146 acres, he was told that there was 76 acres
that were in passive open space and 52 acres of that has to be in prairie dogs and he did not
know about the rest of it but it was a remarkable development. Their feeling was as the owner
was that they need to know if this development was going to go and if was not because of 52
acres of prairie dogs, it wouldn't go with anyone else and they need to know if they need to go
back to farming again.
Jim Sell, talked about the 9.62 acre park and that they would like a decision from the board
tonight and out of 60 or 70 acres of open space, they need 9.62 acres on the project for a people
park where they could put in some amenities that are not available within miles of this
particular site. A park that they have been negotiating with the City Parks Department that
if things go the way them and the City Parks Staff have discussed then it would ultimately
become a City Park. The Developer will spend about a half a millon dollars developing,
turning over to the City and then it would be turned over to people who live in the vicinity.
Not only on this particular site. What was happening in the City right now was they have a
department that was trying to do a good job, Natural Resources, but they were looking at it
• from a narrow perspective. Unfortunately, what they were not getting from the Staff at this
point was someone to step in and say that was true but here is good reason and balance and
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24, 1992
Page 24
diversity of a way of solving this problem. This was on the Boards shoulders to do that.
He showed slides of the Overall Development Plan which show 67.7 acres of passive, active
open space. He showed the neighborhood park and the 9 acres in question, the wetlands and
the stream.
At the preliminary, they had a 15 acre park proposed and they have reduced it down to 9.62
acres. Since that time they have reduced the irrigated portion down to about 8 acres. They
have put in a buffer. Because of the topography on this site and the need for providing
drainage, positive drainage across the proposed park, they were going to be. doing grading in
this area to increase the slope to create runoff. That was going to create geographical along
the edge of the park. They were providing the buffer talked about by Natural Resources. What
they were proposing to do and have a management plan for is a park. There needs to space on
this site for human use for parks and that was only a reasonable thing to do.
As far as habitat, he was insulted by some of the earlier comments about that. One of the
things he pointed out in the presentation back in December as they walked through the site was
how they were going to deal with some of the things on the site that have been disruptive and
destroyed in the interim by farming and prairie dogs.
He showed slides of the condition of the ground where they want to build part of the park.
The wetlands area has been drained and that would be restored by filling in the drainage areas.
The perch sites talked about have some beautiful rock out croppings on them but you are
talking about 30 or 40 feet high. This is not prime habitat in Colorado for these birds. They
are out there but they are all through the area.
He went through the proposal again and the recreational facilities involved with it, the bike
trails and the open space.
Dr. Major Boddicker, Rocky Mountain Wildlife Services, controls prairie dogs and their issues.
He talked about and showed slides on prairie dogs. In Larimer County there is approximately
50,000 acres of prairie dogs with 20 to 25 prairie dogs per acre. They were talking about
millions of prairie dogs. Thousands of alternative acres where a ferruginous hawk could fly
to eat a prairie dog if he wants and a bald eagle could get one away from him if he wants.
He talked about the damage prairie dogs do to agriculture and the losses caused by prairie dogs
due to soil erosion, water and wind erosion because the plants that replace the grass the prairie
dogs kill off. They have been talking about prairie dogs like they were trees, they run, they
run yards to eat and dig. He talked about experiences with prairie dogs and showed slides of
the damages they could do. They average at least six per litter. There will be 10,000 new of
prairie dog towns this year and this little acreage here would not hurt ferruginous hawks a
whole lot.
Dr. Roy Roth, Associate Professor in the Range Science at CSU, showed slides and spoke on
prairie dogs, vegetation in prairie dog towns, soil conditions in prairie dog towns, stream
channel on Fossil Creek where the prairie dogs have not inhabited, the prairie dog colonies.
He was amazed that there was not prairie dogs on the golf course and if there are not now there
would be in the future. He also spoke on the long term implications of the impacts of prairie
dogs on the vegetation whether it was a natural corridor, an open space managed area and/or
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24, 1992
. Page 25
managed park, all of those are not possible with anything that they would find acceptable to
quality of life and/or aesthetics with the presence of prairie dogs.
Some figures on the expected or potential erosion on the site. Based on 1-1/2 to 2 inches of soil
readily displaced you were talking in excess of 300 tons of soil loss per acre of prairie dogs.
That amounts to some 15 to 18 thousand tons of soil displacement and the prime zone for
displacement is in the stream. In his opinion that is in conflict to the stipulations in which the
Department of Natural Resources really would like to have on this site. He finds that as a
resource professional an unacceptable environmental risk. He would much rather see a quality
environment in and around the stream. It was the highest quality site they have available to
the City. In fact if he was going to make choices he would say the area immediately adjacent
to the stream was the most valuable environmental site available to them and in fact the prairie
dogs were compromising that site.
Chairman Strom asked about a slide that was shown down by the stream and had a pretty good
grass growth and what was his sense of why there were no prairie dogs on the site.
Dr. Roth replied that his guess was that the site shown that did not have prairie dogs on it yet
was simply that, they are not there yet and in given time you would see the entire area denuded
as most of the north and west part of the property is now. It was a matter of time. You will
see the east part and the south part occupied by prairie dogs. The site has only had prairie dogs
• on it about five years.
Jim Durke, attorney, stated he had visited the Paragon Point site and his testimony would
reflect his judgement both as a biologist and as an attorney. He spoke on the City's
recommendations of the site, management systems, bald eagles and ferruginous hawks. He
stated the bald eagles being associated with aquatic systems and the reason bald eagles are on
this site is because of the water and if the water was not there the bald eagles would not be.
It was not the prairie dogs that bring them into the area. In the plan they speak on developing
some open water and that would be as attractive to bald eagles as anything they have there
now.
There was also the matter of the ferruginous hawk being of special concern. This some how
has an inner meaning to the Division of Wildlife. It reflects alot of things, it reflects why they
don't understand why there are not more animals. It did not reflect necessarily that the animal
is threatened or endangered. They have modified their definition, the initial definition was
that they did not know and when you look at the original classification, they do not know.
They do know that ferruginous hawks were sensitive and part of the problem for there not
being more than some biologist think there should be was because there nesting requirements
are pretty demanding. They can not take much human disturbance. This site was not nesting
habitat for ferruginous hawks. This does not provide the most critical aspect of a ferruginous
hawks needs was a nesting habitat which was why the cooperative agreement out in the Pawnee
Grasslands where they have long expansives of undisturbed land. That was what was going to
grow ferruginous hawks. They have heard testimony regarding the number of prairie dogs.
What mandate was there that they have ferruginous hawks eating prairie dogs within the City
limits.
Why has the birds of prey become the overriding management objective for wildlife. He did
• not see the geese on the logo replaced by a ferruginous hawk with a bald eagle trying to steal
a prairie dog from him. Some how they have this notion that they have to come out with a plan
Panning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24, 1992
Page 26
to save something just because it is on a list. When you look at the maps and consider the
testimony, the raptorion habitat that was going to benefit from the ultimate relaxation and
recovery of the wildlife habitat that was there and disturbed by the prairie dogs is also a
wildlife benefit. They were so locked into wildlife or eagles and hawks because somehow they
have folked some kind of wonderful status, some emotional ring. There are alot of nuts and
bolts of wildlife habitat approaches that were completely ignored by the Staff that have not
been ignored by Mr. Collins and his staff in setting up the designs and setting aside the areas
in this way. There is, in his opinion, a wildlife plan in what they were attempting to do with
this development. By removing prairie dogs to the extent of allowing the native vegetation that
was there before they started showing up infesting that area, you can have a greater diversity,
a greater number of species of wildlife by allowing this plan. He did understand the policy
that say we have to ignore everything else for two species just because they happen to be on a
list and no one is questioning why they are on the list. When we deal with wildlife issues we
set management objectives and we try to fulfill them the best we can. What was best for the
habitat and the resource that was available. We may want prairie dogs there, we may want
ferruginous hawks and bald eagles, but it was not the best place and there were plenty of other
places and there were other reasons why those animals are not the numbers other people would
want to see. It has nothing to do with Paragon Point. When you start saying you are zoning
these areas for prairie dogs, you better have a good understanding as to why. If they adopt this
just on the basis of ferruginous hawks on the species of special concern list, then he would
submit their actions as arbitrary, capricious and abusive discretion because there is no
relationship to being on that list to the management decision and the zoning decision you would
make regarding this property.
Mr. Dave Osborn, attorney for the Developer, handed out a letter from the Division of Wildlife
Director which stated that the Division of Wildlife had never officially signed a list of species
of special concern. He had been asking since the middle of December for some authority for
Criteria #14. He suggested to the Board there was not that authority tonight. There was no one
from the Division of Wildlife testifying and telling them that these species were significant or
the site was significant. He was suggesting that the Staff had not been asperdent, they are
going to condemn this mans land and make him put this many acres in prairie dogs. They have
not made the finding that they are required in the statute. He was also going to suggest to them
that the testimony of their experts indicates Mr. Collins plan did address the pro environmental
concerns. They have all been on the site, they know that the site is valuable and rare, not
because of the prairie dogs, but because if has a Fossil Creek Drainage. Mr. Roth had indicated
very strongly that the prairie dogs are eroding that drainage. Mr. Durke testified that you
should enhance the environment and do that by concentrating the drainage. That was what Mr.
Collins Plan does. He suggested that they consider Article 9 of the Land Use Guidelines that
the system should incorporate recognition that there are trade offs among quality attributes
of a project, also among the City objectives. The question was whether the Board was going
to favor lakes, ponds and grass and humans or favor prairie dogs. The answer was in Mr.
Collins plans which makes provisions for all of those elements but tends to favor humans and
parks and water and the Fossil Creek Drainage.
Mr. Fred Franz, 5730 South Ridge Greens Blvd, read and distributed a letter addressed to the
Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board and was written by Byron D. Peterson, Chairman of
the Ad -Hoc Committee for South Ridge Greens. It reiterated their position of the extension
of South Ridge Green Blvd. to providing access to Paragon Point. They understood the
previous positions of the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council but they had not
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24, 1992
. Page 27
changed their position. They also wanted to make clear that the letter was not intended to
wave any right of their Association or the individual property owners in South Ridge to file
a petition in the District Court to appeal the decision of the City Council on their appeal to
them. They did wish to protest the filing of the final plat before the time of a court appeal has
expired. It seemed unfair and presumptuous to rush through the final plat stage if there was
a possibility of an appeal. In summary, they were not opposed to development in the area of
South Ridge Greens, they were opposed to the extension of South Ridge Greens Blvd. to the
detriment of everyone except the Developer. Property owners in the area would be adversely
affected, the general public suffers because of the adverse affect on the value of the golf
course and the City could be in a precarious position if there is injury or damage resulting
from the proximity of the eleventh green to the road extension. Paragon Point could be
developed without causing any negative impacts on anyone if they would only require access
to be from Trilby Road and require an emergency access from Paragon Point at South Ridge
Greens. This scenario permits development, avoids adverse impacts on the property owners on
South Ridge and avoids adverse impacts on the Golf Course, everyone wins.
On his own behalf he stated that everyone had talked about compromise, yet when it comes to
South Ridge Greens Blvd, no compromise has ever been entertained. Therefore, because the
Boulevard would be a through street, he felt that the problem areas were several and they still
remain. It has come to his attention that the road configuration now comes very close to the
eleventh green as it is presently installed. In his opinion it called for the eleventh green to be
• relocated. Who pays for that, the citizens of Fort Collins, the Parks and Recreation Department
who is already having problems with the golf course or the Developer who pays to move that
green. The twelfth hole has already been discussed, it has a disruption by the road cutting
through the hole. With the reconfiguration of that entire golf hold, the tee boxes and maybe
ultimately that green to the other side of Fossil Creek, the same question applies, who pays for
all of that relocation. He understands as far as the street crossing the golf course, there was
magically found a reserve fund of several thousand dollars to handle that. He was still
personally very concerned that no apparent consideration or care has been given to the fact
that in excess of 100,000 crossing of South Ridge Greens Boulevard will occur each year by
golfers. Was it possible that the risk of accidents would be increased because the Boulevard is
a thru street. He was glad the vote to affect the safety of others was not his responsibility.
Bonnie Barton, Fort Collins Auduboun Society, stated she felt a little intimidated following all
of the experts, it certainly proved that you can find a expert to support any side of an
argument. She spoke on growth and pushing species farther away and decreases diversity. She
thought the question was do we take over another area without trying to compromise. Do we
try to always choose the values of City Parks and recreation for humans and not consider the
wildlife values. There are some people that think the wildlife values were very important and
not just for pleasure but also to maintain a balance in our earth. She asked them to consider
those things tonight.
Joe LeFlur, 616 1/2 West Olive, student in wildlife biology at CSU, spoke on involvement in
the student chapter of the Wildlife Society and the weekly rapture surveys at the prairie dog
towns south of Fort Collins. One of the sites they stop at is at Trilby Road east of Lemay. He
listed the dates and birds they have cited at this location. They have also cited a bald eagle
eating prairie dogs in the area. The Wildlife Society considering the need for preserving
• wildlife habitat for benefits now and in the future tonight voted unamiously toward
preventing development of the 9.62 acre turf grass park in Paragon Point and suggested that
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24,1992
Page 28
this area be left as open space in its natural habitat. Thus allowing continued use by wildlife
species.
As an individual he spoke about the location of the development being central located among
many other prairie dog towns, there are prairie dog towns surrounding it in all except the north
area where development already exists. He spoke about habitat fragmentation concept and
decreased use by raptures. He agreed that if the park is put where proposed the raptures would
not use the area. He mentioned some good points about prairie dogs. In conclusion, all though
the land itself was privately owned, the public owns the wildlife that lives there and this
development would impact the wildlife. In his opinion, it was the responsibility of the
Developer to provide some litigation and compensation for the impacts that the development
would create. He believed that there could be a compromise where everyone would benefit.
Greg Hadler, a member of the Conservation Biology Society at Colorado State University and
also the Wildlife Society at CSU. He spoke about the amenity values of the area for all of Fort
Collins not just wildlife. He thought that habitat management was what made Fort Collins
attractive to prospective home buyers and businesses. It was important for us to preserve the
natural beauty of Fort Collins and in Colorado.
Bill Miller, Vice President of the Audobon Society, spoke on the frustration of the community
that there are some natural values out there that ought to be protected. The Fossil Creek
Drainage was a major wildlife corridor which leads from the plains up to the mountains. The
corridor was being dissected a piece at a time by development. There is already major roads
going through it. Development communities are being established of which Paragon is just one.
The issue here was not prairie dogs, the issue goes further here in which the hawks and eagles
are just part of it. It has been commented tonight that nothing is critical about this because
it is just winter range. If you starve in the winter you don't raise chicks in the spring. The
increase use of the area by the bald eagle over the last ten, years or so was because the bald
eagle has undergone a recovery nation wide. We have seen an increased usage by the bald
eagle, extending the territory from the Platte River Basin all the way into Fort Collins. Bald
eagle is just not a fish eater, it feeds alot on carrion, prairie dogs are carrion. He spoke on the
cumulative effects of development, he spoke on the development of property of the ridge on
the east side of the property and erosion of the property and sedimentation problem in the
Fossil Creek Drainage and ultimately into Fossil Creek Reservoir:
Don Shannon, concerned citizen, stated he was very proud of the job the City of Fort Collins
has done preserving our wildlife and intermingling our natural assets of the community with
the humans that live here. He believes that humans should have first priority. He thinks the
parks, streams, recreation, trail systems that have been done have been excellent. He also grew
up on the range, he has lived with prairie dogs. Prairie dogs are not compatible with people.
You don't set aside a nine acre park for the prairie dogs, they take over. Prairie dogs carry
plague. There is alot of dryland in Colorado with room for prairie dogs, with room for falcons
and other birds, bald eagles, etc. We would be making a grave error in making this developer
require to set aside space for prairie dogs. He was particularly concerned with the liability to
the City. Mothers with small children don't want their children playing in the backyard full
of prairie dogs. Who would be responsible for the health benefits and plague that may be
caused by the prairie dogs. Also invited would be rattle snakes. He thought that they were
condemning the Developers property. If they want it for prairie dogs, just condemn it and tell
him to look else where because you have hurt his property value, as a professional appraiser,
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24, 1992
. Page 29
property values are affected by the attitudes of people. People who have the ability to buy lots
within the area. People who have the ability to buy lots there are not going to want to share
their backyard with a prairie dog. The City has done a good job in the past, introducing prairie
dogs voluntarily into our City limits was not going to improve our image. It was a problem that
the City was going to have to live with forever in South Ridge Golf Course and the other
residential developments down there. He asked them to give the humans the benefit here.
Member Clements -Cooney asked was there currently any activity going on in this area. It has
been brought to her attention that there have been dewatering trenches recently put on the
property.
Mr. Roger Prenzlow, replied that on the southwest corner of the property in the vicinity of the
intersection of Lemay and Trilby Road, years ago there was a trench that was L shaped in
nature that was provided for livestock watering. That trench, they did try to drain the trench
in the fall of 1990. They wanted to get the water out of it. It was discussed with the Army
Corp of Engineers and they were on the site. Their recommendation was that the trench be
filled. The reason was that the trench was intercepting underground water course and changes
the wetlands that are currently there are in a state of transition from wetlands to uplands and
they would prefer that it be filled so the wetlands would be re-established.
Member Clements -Cooney asked if this was something recently put on the property.
• Mr. Prenzlow replied no it was not.
Member Walker asked for clarification on the Master Plan and the area through which Fossil
Creek runs that they were not considering in Phase I and what has that land been designated
and how was it going to be treated on the Master Plan.
Steve Olt replied that on the Overall Development Plan, those areas on the subdivision plat are
actually designated as tracts and on the Overall Development Plan itself it is undisturbed
native grass areas was how it was designated.
Member Walker asked if anything would be done to that area.
Mr. Sell replied that it would be restored to natural habitat, they were going to restore the
wetlands, the stream, the system that was there, the uplands that are there.
Mr. Peterson replied that the ODP did not state that there was going to restoration, it says
undisturbed native grasses.
Chairman Strom asked for clarification on whether Staff was saying that the 9.62 acres should
not be a park or was Staff saying that 9.62 acres needed to be investigated for a habitat
management plan.
Mr. Olt replied that the latest position was that it would be a condition of approval if they
would choose that the habitat management plan would be developed within the next 30 days,
prior to the next meeting and determine what mitigation measures in the 9.62 acres would be.
• Initially Staffs position was that the area pretty much in its entirety other that the trail as
shown on the site plan and the landscape buffer west of that between the proposed developed
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24,1992
Page 30
area and the trail. Mitigation measures, landscape buffer and east of the trail would remain
in its natural state. The habitat management plan would define that area and determine how
much of the 9.62 acres really could be developed in some fashion.
Mr. Peterson also replied that it was a broader answer also it was the rest of the open space on
the property, it was not just for the 9.62 acres.
Member Walker commented that they were struggling with policy #14 in the LDGS and it had
been tossed around several times. He had concerns that they have a site that everyone agrees
seemed to be where the houses are the prairie dogs would be moved out. There was no
questions that there was going to be some disturbance of the prairie dog colonies on the site.
Then the question was how much was too much or enough to strike some balance. He has not
heard any good criteria on how many prairie dogs it takes to maintain the wildlife habitat. It
seem like a fuzzy number. If in fact it could be defined. It really comes down to the fact
where we have 9 acres that was in contention and approximately 30 other acres that they were
considering tonight and they all agree that the prairie dogs would leave those sites because that
was where the houses would be built. The question was whether there would be prairie dogs
on the 9 acres or not. There seemed to be different opinions on what the interpretation of the
Division of Wildlifes status of the hawks are. There was a point made that on the existing
property where they develop the water features, he would argue that may enhance the habitat
for eagles and they are addressing that in the part of the site they were seeing now. There was
alot of interpretations to comments and statements being made tonight. He was not convinced
that he could make such a specific definition that 9 acres was going to up or down for the
prairie dogs.. He did not see that it was going to make a significant difference. On the larger
issue, item #14, he had not heard convincing arguments on where did the hawks stand in terms
of the designation. It did not seem that there was significant evidence that has been presented
to say that the hawk was in the endangered species category. When it comes to bald eagles, the
ponds that are being put in and the vegetation would be an enhancement. He felt that what
was being proposed as park and open space as parkland, he could not make a judgement that
it was not a good idea based on the evidence presented tonight.
Member Clements -Cooney, commented that the process has fallen apart before her eyes. She
sees what was going on here more compromise, a lose -lose situation than cooperation. She heard
Mr. Shoemaker say lets work something out. He has heard experts on the Developers say yes
there are management techniques that could work out, so if both sides say we can work this out,
why was it not working out. She did not think she had been convinced that they are taking
everything into account. Member Clements -Cooney read Criteria #14 and she did not feel that
it had been done and thought that it could be done.
Member Cottier shared everyones frustration with all the different stories they had heard.
Clearly different view point. From her perspective she was very frustrated with the conflicts
that are presented and do not seem to be resolvable between different resource concerns. On
one hand they want vegetation and on one hand they want prairie dogs, they are not
compatible. On one hand they want open space and parks planned. This was part of our City
Goals and Objectives and on the other hand they say they want prairie dogs. She thought these
conflicts needed to be resolved in a way the Staff reviews projects such as this rather than just
focusing on the one or few real obvious wildlife things that exist there and say this has to be
maintained. With respect to Criteria #14, she believes that the Criteria had been met by this
project in as much as some 50 acres of open space was being retained that provide for the
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24,1992
• Page 31
prairie dog habitat. She did not believe she had heard anything that says eliminating 30 acres
was going to get rid of the ferruginous hawks or the bald eagles. If anything does, it was going
to be the houses. She believed that the extension of Southridge Greens Boulevard to Trilby
Road that Council wanted them to comment on, does not need to be done with this phase of the
development. She thought the gravel road was sufficient emergency access and does meet
Criteria #9 of the LDGS. What they were left with doing was finding a practical and
reasonable balance between all of the conflicting objectives. Resource versus development and
she thought that on this particular project there was a large open area maintained that this was
a really responsive proposal and sensitive to what exists out there. The primary focus that it
did accomplish was protecting the Fossil Creek Drainage Way. One other Criteria important
to note was Criteria #28. And this project did accomplish this Criteria. Nothing they were
doing was precluding or destroying what exists out there.
Member Carroll commented he did have some concern about the habitat of the birds. He was
persuaded by what the experts testified about prairie dogs. He was persuaded that there should
be some sort of plan in place to deal with prairie dogs. He found their testimony convincing.
It ties in with the Staff report which indicates that management plans had not been specified
by the Developer for the portions of the development area proposed as open space. The
methods to be used for prairie dog control has not been identified. He was more persuaded by
#6, human/wildlife conflicts. The Developer, Division of Wildlife and Staff have all
identified the fact that there was significant potential for conflict between people and prairie
dogs. Among his concerns was removal of vegetation by prairie dogs to such an extent that
• surrounding areas are unsitely and pose erosion concerns which ties into Item #13 of the All
Development Criteria, Air Quality #9, #17. His opinion was that the Developer had said to
them, they were going to develop this are and they would work it out, leave the prairie dogs
under their control. He thought that it worked both ways, he could be persuaded under certain
circumstances that prairie dogs should be removed from the entire site. If they are not, he
would like to see measures in a habitat development plan as suggested by the experts of how
are these things going to be controlled.
He was not stating that he agrees with all of the recommendations of what the habitat
management plan should contain as suggested by Staff. He would support approving this with
a habitat management plan to brought back to them. He was not saying the Developer and the
City had to agree, but it may be the plan was presented by the Developer may have certain
areas of agreement with Staff and may have parts that are in disagreement. He did feel that
the whole issue of prairie dogs and birds needed to addressed.
Member Walker asked if they could require a habitat management plan on the other 58 acres.
Mr. Eckman replied that it was within their prerogative to request a comprehensive
management plan that would cover the entire area.
Member Carroll added that on the 9.6 acre park he felt that the prairie dogs would come on to
the site and if it was a City Park, then it would be a City Park Department chasing them
around and he heard that certain steps could be taken to prevent them from coming into the
Park and again that was not addressed. It was not in any plan he has seen. It was something
he wanted addressed. He was not ruling out the 9.6 acres as shown by the Developer. He
accepted the condition that the habitat management plan shall address the design and the
• management of the park/open space, which he would want to see.
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24,1992
Page 32
Chairman Strom stated that the City Council directed them to look at the possibility of looking
or completing the construction of the street to Trilby Road with this phase. Having looked at
that, it seemed to him to make very good sense to stop the pavement at the edge of this
development and the Developer has told him they would be maintaining the gravel surface
from there to Trilby Road until the construction was complete.
As to the approval or not of this development, he thought Mr. Carroll made some good
arguments that a habitat management plan for the area was needed. His concern was that in
evaluating this as to go forward or to table or deny, it seemed that this was not the only issue.
They don't have the plans signs required by the LDGS and they don't have a development
agreement signed as in the LDGS. It seemed that there was some outstanding features that he
would like to see before he puts his stamp of approval on a final development plan. He was not
convinced that this 9.6 acres needs to open space for prairie dogs or that it needed to be a park.
He was inclined to thing that there was alot of open space and this 9.6 acres was not going to
make the difference between saving the ferruginous hawk in Colorado or even in Fort Collins.
His frustration was that recognizing that this was an evolving process and that everyone has
deadlines they were trying to meet, they were being asked to approve something that has some
holes in it and he was not very comfortable with that.
Member Cottier 'moved for approval of Paragon Point PUD Final with the condition with
respect to a habitat management plan as stated in the Staff memo with the understanding that
the 9.62 acres could be in the park as proposed on the final plan. Approval with conditions 1
and 4 in the Staff memo.
Mr. Eckman added that there was an addition to the two conditions and that was the
conservation/erosion easement condition and condition Number Three regarding erosion.
Those conditions require that there be notations made on the plat and site plan and that was
not in the development agreement.
Member Cottier added conditions two and three to be part of the approval.
Chairman Strom asked if it was an approval with all four conditions as itemized in the Staff
report.
Member Cotter replied yes.
Chairman Strom if it also included required variances from the LDGS for the plan not being
signed.
Mr. Eckman replied that it also should be added that the plans had not yet been approved by
the City.
Member Cottier added that to the motion.
Mr. Eckman asked whether, regarding condition number one pertaining to the habitat
management plan that as a part and parcel of that condition that the 9.6 acres could be
developed as a park.
0
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24,1992
is
Page 33
Member Cottier stated that what she was saying was that she was moving approval of the park
as presented with the final tonight and that a habitat management plan for the entire open
space area be developed. She was in agreement with the park as proposed tonight, that there
be development in the park area, the 9.62 acres.
Mr. Eckman asked if that was part of her motion so if the Board passes that it would be the
statement of the Board regarding the park.
Member Cottier replied that it was being presented as the final plan tonight, yes.
Motion died for lack of second.
Member Carroll moved for the same motion as Member Cottier with the exception that with
regard to the park, that the habitat management plan address the design and management of
the 9.6 acre park/open space as shown on the Paragon Point. That issue would be left open for
determination of the Board at that time.
Motion died for lack of second.
Member Walker moved for approval of Phase I of Paragon Point with the stipulation that there
be a decision be made regarding the park/open space. His condition was that the 9.6 acres be
• developed as a park and that the Items regarding conservation/erosion easements. Other
statements regarding City liability or responsibility for erosion and that the Development
Agreement be signed.
Chairman Strom asked that his motion did not include the habitat management plan and it did
include variances for the Development Agreement and plan as well as conditions two and three
about erosion and conservation easements and holding the City harmless.
Member Walker thought they were only looking at Phase I here and they had all agreed that
they could put houses on some of this land and move the prairie dogs and now the question
seemed to be the 9.6 acres. He thought there was a larger site plan that needed to be addressed
and he would suggest that the Fossil Creek Corridor has a potential to be the habitat
management plan and he did not care to address that at this time. He thought that if they
agree that the park should be developed as a park then action should be taken on that right
now and there was a question of time here and someone did not get something until late in the
game and there was an opportunity in other phases to address it. The issue right before them
was whether they were going to have a park or prairie dogs and he was coming down on the side
of the park.
Member Cottier seconded the motion.
Chairman Strom stated he would not be supporting the motion. He was not comfortable with
the final approval without some better resolution of the habitat/wildlife conflicts with regard
to Criteria #14.
• Motion was denied 3-2 with Members Carroll, Clements -Cooney and Strom voting no.
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24,1992
Page 34
Member Carroll moved to reconsider.
Chairman Strom seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 4-1 with Member Clements -Cooney voting no.
Member Walker stated that some of the problem was that all the focus was on Item #14. He
thought there was other issues. Impacts that the prairie dogs have on the environment and it
would almost seem that he could make a case on prairie dog eradication would address some
of the City policies. He could see both sides of this. He thought they were zeroing too much
on the fact that they have to deal with the habitat issue. He thought there were larger issues
that were brought up by some of the testimony that the prairie dogs were not just animals that
were there for the hawks to eat, there were also things they do to the environment and the
prairie dogs were violating City policy and those issues have to be addressed. He also thought
that the 9.6 acres was not going to tip the balance in any way.
Chairman Strom commented that he agreed with Member Walker on looking at a broader scope
and where they differ was the habitat management plan and to Member Walker it was deciding
what to do with this area, not necessarily deciding that the prairie dogs would be preserved.
It was entirely possible that the habitat management plan for this area would be to eradicate
the prairie dogs. He thought what he was not comfortable with was stamping this approved
and not knowing what they were going to do with it.
Member Clements -Cooney agreed with Chairman Strom and added that tonight they focused
on birds of prey, prairie dogs and yet above and beyond that was a final before them that has
holes in it. There was no signed Development Agreement and the plans have not yet been
approved by the City. It was not just the prairie dogs and the hawks. There are other issues
here that she has a problem with and thinks that a management agreement could be a quality
of ►ife. She thinks it could be worked out. She wanted them to work together and they should
be the ones to figure it out and come back to them with some kind of concept whether it be
eradicate the prairie dogs or fill the place with prairie dogs. Something could be worked out
and above and beyond that there was problems with the plan as it was tonight.
Member Carroll stated that he was not saying that he did not think it should not be a park, but
the east and west of it was open area and it seemed that they should have some buffers to keep
the prairie dogs out of the park before he went along with it.
Member Colder stated that a stumbling block seems to be that the Development Agreement and
the plans have not been signed. She could deal with the Development Agreement not being
signed. With respect to the engineering plans not being signed. What was the reason for that?
Mike Herzig, Engineering Division, replied that the plans were not done. The plans have been
submitted and they had been revised numerous times but there was alot of details still to be put
on the plans to make them construction plans. They have been focusing on the issues in the
Development Agreement. They have tried to hit all the areas they feel were important. There
are some details that he had heard tonight that they have not talked about. Some of the details
were not on the plan yet.
Member Cottier preferred that they not fall back on that as a technicality for a denial tonight.
• 0
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24,1992
• Page 35
Member Clements -Cooney moved to deny the Paragon Point PUD Final because the final plan
does not adequately address Criteria #14 as it relates to prairie dog towns and birds of prey and
the Development Agreement for this development had not yet been signed by the Developer and
the plans had not yet been approved by the City.
Motion died for lack of second.
Chairman Strom viewed the Development Agreement and plans not being signed as additional
indications that this plan has not been worked out to the stage of final approval and one of the
key things in that was the question of how they were going to deal with the creek corridor and
the park/open space and Criteria #14 with regard to sensitive species and habitat and so forth.
It seemed to him that there was unresolved issues beyond what we normally see at a final
development plan approval.
Member Walker asked if they were to suggest a habitat management plan, would the Board
review that again in their March meeting.
Mr. Peterson replied that was correct and that Staff needed about two weeks for it to gel and
they would be bringing it to them with a recommendation at the regular March meeting on the
23rd.
• Member Walker asked what the accomplishment was in approving this thing and then waiting
for the March meeting versus tabling.
Mr. Peterson replied that tabling it would certainly help everyone focus on this in the next two
weeks.
Member Walker motioned to table with the understanding that they will take this up again at
the March meeting and for the express purpose of satisfying themselves that they have a
workable habitat management plan for this site.
Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0.
Brittany Knolls PUD. 2nd Filing - Preliminary. #21-83G.
Ted Shepard gave the Staff report recommending approval with conditions as stated in the
Staff Report.
Member Carroll asked if Staff had reviewed the five statements or reasons made by the
applicant and Staff agrees that they are correct and provide a basis for a variance.
Mr. Shepard replied that they were listed in their memo as a summary of what the applicant
submitted and it was Staffs finding that under these five statements by the applicant that B
and C were the ones that were applicable and they were the ones that most strictly define and
meet the intent of the variance procedure as allowed in the ordinance. Not all of them did.
• Not all of them are applicable but he listed them in some reform but B and C did meet the
criteria.
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
February 24,1992
Page 36
Rich Dvorak, TST Engineers, stated this was filing 2 of the Master Plan submitted back in
1987. This was the last phase of the residential area. It is immediately north of filing I and
is boardered on the west by the Transfort facility, on the east by South Lemay Avenue and on
the north by undeveloped land.
Member Walker pointed out that the consideration on the concern of solar access and did not
have a problem. He thought the five conditions were reasonable.
Member Carroll moved for a variance for the Absolute Criteria regarding minimum density and
would also moved for a variance of the solar orientation based upon the reasons set forth in the
recommendation on page 9 of the Staff memo.
Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0.
Member Carroll moved for approval of the Brittany Knolls, Filing 2, Preliminary PUD with the
five conditions as attached to the memo.
Member Clements -Cooney seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0.
There was no other business.
Meeting adjourned at 1:20 a.m.